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

Re: Should rdf:value have a semantics?? (was: Re: Quick review of RDFprimer)

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 2002 16:47:53 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b23ba12df5caa87@[10.0.100.247]>
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes wrote:
>>
>>  >More discussion below:
>>  >
>>
>>  snip
>>
>>  >  >
>>  >>  So more generally, to the WG: should I give rdf:value a model theory?
>>  >>  Speak soon, guys. Unless I hear otherwise I will do this:
>>  >>
>>  >>  aaa rdf:value "bbb" .
>>  >>
>>  >>  means that there is some conventional mapping M from lexical forms
>>  >>  under which I(aaa) = M(bbb). Doesn't say much, but it might be
>>  >>  useful, particularly if we say that any datatype L2V mapping counts
>>  >>  as a 'conventional mapping'.
>>  >
>>  >I'm not clear on something.  This doesn't preclude the value of an
>>  >rdf:value property from being a typed literal does it?
>>
>>  Well, yes, it would, but isn't that appropriate? I guess it might
>>  make sense to say
>>
>>  aaa rdf:value "10"^^xsd:string .
>>
>>  but one might as well omit the type in this case; and it would never
>>  make sense to say
>>
>>    aaa rdf:value "10"^^xsd:integer .
>>
>>  since integers aren't lexical forms.
>>  (If this does make sense, what is it supposed to mean?)
>>
>
>Pat--
>
>Back up a minute.  The "historic" use of rdf:value was for the cases
>like
>
>my:cat rdf:type ex:DomesticCat .
>my:cat ex:weight _:x .
>_:x rdf:value "15" .
>_:x ex:unit ex:Kilogram
>
>Now that we have datatypes, the extension of this usage to
>
>my:cat rdf:type ex:DomesticCat .
>my:cat ex:weight _:x .
>_:x rdf:value "15"^^xsd:integer .
>_:x ex:unit ex:Kilogram
>
>seems perfectly straightforward.  You're being more precise about what
>the value is (it's a number, rather than a string), and you need other
>properties anyway to specify the units (and anything else).  I'm not
>such a fan of rdf:value, but it seems to me that restricting rdf:value
>to preclude this usage might seem somewhat artificial to those already
>using it.

Yes, OK, fair enough. Sigh. Then I really don't know what can be said 
about it in the MT. So maybe I wont say anything.

Neeeverrr Mind.

Pat
>
>--Frank
>
>--
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 3 December 2002 17:47:49 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:48 EDT