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@[]>
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" .
>>  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?

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Thursday, 21 February 2002 18:16:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC