W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Denotation of datatype values

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 16 Apr 2002 16:56:25 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020416164917.041c0ec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 04:06 PM 4/16/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > [GK wanders over to the stake in the ground, and gives it a hard kick, to
> > make sure it's still firmly planted...]
>
>Was it? ;-)
>
>Was the kick to test if was firmly planted, or to ensure
>that it remains firmly planted?

Keeping an eye on it...

> >> But we have been asked, to a certain extent, to provide an answer
> >> that extends to the point of obtaining a datatype value unambiguously
> >> and reliably. The present MT does not bring users to that point.
> >> A datatyped literal pairing does -- insofar as it identifies a single
> >> value which is obtainable by an application which groks the datatype
> >> in question.
> >
> > Having an rdfd:range [[or substitute current vocab]] associated with a
> > property tells you nothing about the denotation of an object of that
> > property.  I.e. it does nothing to help "obtaining a datatype value
> > unambiguously and reliably".  (I found that trying to make it do so leads
> > to contradictions.)
> >
> > All it does is limit the allowable literals at the property's sharp end.
>
>I either don't fully follow you, or disagree (or both ;-)
>
>If RDF Datatyping cannot provide a consistent and unambiguous
>interpretation resulting in a specific datatype value, then
>we're just wasting our time.

Well, maybe, but as I understand things according to Pat's last proposal:

     Jenny age "10" .
     age rdfd:range xsd:integer .

Tells us _only_ that the thing denoted by the node at the sharp end of 
"age" is the 2-character string "10".  Which is exactly what you have in 
absence of the rdfd:range statement.

As far as it goes, that's pretty clear and unambiguous.  But to conclude 
that Jenny's age is defined by the number 10 would be to draw upon 
information that is not sanctioned by the graph and its model theory.

>If a given approach to reaching that goal results in contradictions,
>then there is something wrong with the approach, not the goal, and
>I believe that the approach defined by the present WD achieves that
>goal without contradiction.

For some value of "that goal"... yes, I agree.  See above.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 12:17:01 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:30 EDT