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 21:24:06 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020416212135.037c7910@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 08:09 PM 4/16/02 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-04-16 18:56, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>wrote:
>
>
> >> 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.
>
>I'm not saying otherwise.
>
> > 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.
>
>But I'm not saying that.

Good!

>  I'm saying that the combination of the
>inline idiom and the rdfd:range/datatype assertion designates
>the pairing <xsd:integer, "10"> and that pairing is the basis
>for any datatyping interpretation. I.e., the knowledge in the
>graph unambiguously identifies a single value by designating
>a datatyped literal pairing. What that actual
>value is, we don't know *at this level*. But at a higher level
>where the full knowledge of xsd:integer is available, then
>we know that the pairing <xsd:integer, "10"> identifies the
>value ten.
>
>The RDF Datatyping MT is not saying the value is ten. It is
>saying that it is whatever value is identified by the interpretation
>of the lexical form "10" within the context of the datatype
>xsd:integer.
>
>That may seem like a very slight distinction, but it is
>a very significant one.

Slight, maybe.  Significant, definitely, in the sense that (as far as I can 
tell) it goes beyond that which is specified by the model theory.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 16:21:01 EDT

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