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

Re: Before we go on...

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:29:35 +0300
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8E5A20F.1375F%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-04-18 23:55, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

>> On 2002-04-18 0:50, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>>>  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.
>>> 
>>>  No, it isn't saying that. It doesn't refer to contexts, and it is not
>>>  saying that the lexical form identifies a value. That is a very
>>>  misleading and confusing way to describe what the MT says, since the
>>>  MT says very clearly that any literal denotes a string, even when it
>>>  is 'associated' with a datatype, and even in the 'context' of a
>>>  datatyping interpretation.
>> 
>> You continue to misunderstand what I am saying.
> 
> Well, if I am not understanding it, might it be possible that others
> will also misunderstand it? Im doing my best here.
> 
>> For the record,
>> and please print this out and paste it somewhere where you will
>> always see it:
>> 
>>  Patrick Asserts: A literal node always denotes itself, the literal string.
>>                   The meaning of a literal node never changes.
>> 
>> There, now let's try again:
>> 
>> A literal *AND* a datatype *TOGETHER* identify a single, specific
>> datatype value.
> 
> Of course they 'identify' one, yes, in some sense: that's part of the
> definition of a datatype. But that is irrelevant to the meaning of
> RDF. 

But that's primarily what's relevant to the *purpose* of RDF datatyping.

> The point is that no amount of datatyping is going to change the
> fact that a literal node DENOTES itself, and that the only sense of
> 'meaning' we have. There is no notion of a literal and a datatype
> denoting anything 'together'.

I'm arguing that there *should* be, even if it does not have explicit
denotation in the graph. That is the point of providing a datatyping
interpretation -- to get to those datatype values.

>  That just doesn't make sense.

If that doesn't make sense, then RDF Datatyping doesn't make sense
and we can all just stop here.

> There is 
> (or was) a notion of a datatyped interpretation (ie one that took
> account of the extra meaning incorporated in the semantic conditions
> on the rdfd vocabulary), and what I said above still holds: a literal
> node always denotes itself, even in a datatyped interpretation.

And I'm not, and *NEVER* have said otherwise.

> Datatypes plus literals define datatype values, but datatypes do not
> make literals MEAN datatype values.

Again, I've never said that. And I've said that I've never
said that so many times that I can't understand why it hasn't
gotten through to you  that that is *NOT* what I am saying.

Sheesh!

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Literals always denote literals and datatyping does not change
the meaning of literals, ever, in any way.

Do you see that I've said that now?

Can we now focus on what I am really saying, which you also
seem to understand from the above, but seem to consider to be
irrelevant.

Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.
Literals and datatypes together identify specific datatype values.


That's why we bother with all this datatyping crap. To communicate
datatype values. That's what *MATTERS* to the applications needing
to do datatyping in RDF. If the present MT considers this to be
irrelevant, then it is not capturing the very reason why we are
spending so much time and energy on defining a standardized way
to communicate about datatype values.

Eh?!

>> The fact that a given literal represents a particular datatype value
>> according to the lexical to value mapping of a particular datatype
>> does not change the meaning of the literal itself.
> 
> That reads as incoherent to me. If the meaning of the literal is
> unchanged, and is itself, then the literal (node) does NOT
> 'represent' the datatype value in any semantically meaningful sense.
> Look, we argued this out already. There was a (different) datatyping
> proposal in which literals could mean datatype values. We considered
> that option, and after long and arduous discussions, decided against
> it. Lets not re-hash these debates yet again.

I'm not. You continue to misunderstand what I am saying, or continue
to insist I am saying something I'm not.

Forgive me for not using your language. I only have mine to use. They
don't appear to be the same.

You also seem to have a problem understanding qualifying clauses,
such as "according to", "insofar as", "in terms of", etc. You
seem to take the base clause of the sentence, strip off all
qualifications, and then comment on how it is wrong in isolation.

>> 
>> OK?
>> 
>> If you disagree with that, then we disagree about the very
>> foundation of what RDF Datatyping is, and we need not bother
>> to go forward.
> 
> Well, the WG has to go forward. Seems to me that we came to a
> decision already about how to do it (and I wasn't even at the meeting
> :-).

I'm not challenging that decision. You only percieve that I am,
because you misunderstand me to be saying that the meaning of
a literal can change, which  I'm not saying, nor have said.

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 Friday, 19 April 2002 03:26:41 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:33 EDT