Re: For untidiness ...

On 2002-02-05 0:36, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:


> I see untidiness as far more invidious. Since literals are polymorphic,
> it is possible to create a "datatype" for persons and another one for
> names, so that literal "Martyn" may represent a person if it occurs in
> one context, or it may represent a person's name in another context.
> That's what I call invidious...

Hmmm.... 

Then TDL is invidious to its very core.  The whole point of TDL
is that a given literal, e.g. "10" can represent different values
in different datatype contexts. In the context of xsd:integer
it is 10. In the context of xsd:string it is "10". In the
context of e.g. ex:binaryInteger it is 2. Etc. etc.

A literal in and of itself means nothing. It must have context
for its interpretation as a value.

A TDL pairing is a "literal-in-context" which denotes a value.

Thus, so long as we are cursed to have lexical forms in the graph,
we will have some degree of untidyness -- either untidy literals or
untidy bNodes with tidy literals hanging off of them.

Right?

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com