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

Re: literal value terminology (was: Re: Review of MT)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:33:04 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:09 PM 1/18/02 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Hmm. The trouble is that plain "value" could mean anything at all.  I want 
>to allow the MT to conceptually distinguish values of literals from 
>semantic values in general, ie resources. (They might turn out to be the 
>same; but they might not also and I'd like to stay agnostic.)


>How about calling them "datatype values" ? That avoids the use of 
>"literal" as an adjective and also makes an obvious connection with 
>datatyping. It also follows the DAML usage, which distinguishes 'object' 
>classes from 'datatype' classes, which are classes of datatype values.
>Anyone got strong views on this? Speak now! Unless there are strong 
>objections I will make this change.

I have no objections with these terms per se, but...

Have we got a glossary somewhere to record all this... I'm becoming a 
little worried that there might not be convergence terminology.  I've been 
talking/thinking in terms of datatype lexical space vs value 
space;  Sergey's datatyping document sets up these, and I guess I'd like to 
see any new/refined terminology related to those definitions.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC