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

Re: RDF Datatyping MT *does* define Datatyped Literal Pairings

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 12:43:57 +0300
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E31E8D.1349F%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-17 12:27, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


> OK, lets revert to a test case:
> 
>    foo rdfd:range xsd:integer .
>    foo rdfd:range xsd:string .
>    Jenny foo "10" .
> 
> I believe this is completely valid according to Pat's last datatype spec
> [1], but how am I to decide which rdfd:range applies in determining the
> intended value of Jenny's 'foo'?

It is valid at the RDF level. It is a datatype clash at a level above
RDF where the full semantics of the datatypes in question is available,
since both pairings do not represent the same value.

The RDF datatyping MT defines two pairings. But the validity of any
particular pairing cannot be tested at the RDF level.

See my reply to Jeremy in

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Apr/0233.html

who, interestingly, provided the exact same test case ;-)

> As far as I can tell, the rest of your message deals with additional
> inferences that you might care to draw, but which are not sanctioned by the
> model theory.  I searched the text of Pat's proposal [1] (our stake in the
> ground), and found no occurrence of the word "pair" or "pairing".

Well, ahem, just because the word does not occur does not mean
the pairing does not occur. Pat often uses the term "associate"
in that sense. To associate a datatype with a literal is to
define a datatyped literal pairing.

To be specific, L2V(I(xsd:integer))("10") is a datatyped literal
pairing.

Furthermore, as a point regarding process, the "stake in the ground"
represents a common consensus, insofar as its technical properties
are concerned, not a common presentation or prose for its definition
or discussion. So just because some particular word does not exist
in the "stake in the ground" materials, does not mean it cannot
exist in the WD -- otherwise, just publish the "stake in the ground"
document and be done with it.
   
Patrick 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 05:41:34 EDT

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