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

Re: simplified datatyping proposal

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:16:05 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101410b89b2db2e54d@[65.212.118.219]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-20 19:41, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:
>
>
>>  Can I ask y'all for some clarification. Do people want to support
>>  BOTH in-line and bnode forms at the same time? That is, should the
>>  following mean the same thing and be affected in the same way by a
>>  drange assertion on ex:age ??:
>>  (1)
>>  person:Jenny ex:age "10" .
>>  (2)
>>  person:Jenny ex:age _:x .
>>  _:x rdfs:dlex "10" .
>
>Yes.
>
>>  As things are at present, (1) means that Jenny's age is a character
>>  string, no matter what else you say, whereas (2) says her age is
>>  something that can be described by a character string, so can be
>>  modified by other datatyping. We can change this, as I say, but only
>>  at a cost.
>
>It depends on how much of the datatyping interpretation is
>intended to be captured in the graph.
>
>If we agree that a literal denotes a literal always, and at
>some level above the graph, we may determine based on the
>combination of a literal and a datatype that the literal is
>string equal with a lexical form that denotes a value, great.
>
>But we don't then have to say that the literal node *denotes*
>the value. It still denotes the literal.
>
>Datatyping interpretation can happen above the graph. The
>knowledgeg necessary to make those interpretations consistently
>and unambiguously is captured in the graph. And in the graph,
>a literal always denotes a literal.
>
>Where is the problem?

The problem for me is that none of this makes the any sense at all. I 
have no idea what you are talking about.

1. If a literal always denotes itself, then datatyping information in 
the graph (in particular, about ranges expressed using rdfs:drange 
for example) cannot influence the meaning or truthvalues of any 
'in-line' use. That is how my first 'simplified' proposal worked, but 
I gather you did not like that.
(To emphasize: if "15" denotes "15", then

Jenny ex:age "15" .

says that Jenny's ex:age is "15". It does not, cannot, and never will 
say that Jenny's ex:age is 15, no matter what you do above, inside or 
underneath the graph. End of story; nothing more to be said; nothing 
can change it (short of re-writing the entire RDF MT from the ground 
up.). )

2. I do not know what you mean by a 'level above' the graph, and in 
any case that is irrelevant, whatever it means, since we are here 
talking about the graph.

3. I do not know what you mean by the distinction between a string 
and a lexical form. Seems to me that lexical forms *are* strings. 
(They sure look like strings on the page.)

4. What kind of interpretation happens 'above' the graph? And how can 
it make any difference  to  what the graph means?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 18:16:07 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:18 EDT