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

Re: TDL Model Theory

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:42:36 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B875E9FC.C38B%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-24 0:16, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> wrote:

> I was too quick on the send key.  When I said:
> 
>> Something thing that is bothering me about this is:  the interpretation of
>> a Unicode node is stated in such a way that there may be several
>> literal-value pairs that could be denoted.  Do you mean the interpretation
>> in this case to be ambiguous?  Suppose that data types BinaryNumber and
>> DecimalNumber are recognized, then a node labelled "10" can denote:
>>    <BinaryNumber,2>
>>    <DecimalNumber,10>
> 
> I really meant to say:
>>    <"10",2>
>>    <"10",10>

It's probably clearer to indicate that these mappings
are within the scope of a specific datatype, e.g.

   BinaryNumber("10",2)
   DecimalNumber("10",10)

which are implied by the TDL pairings (in the graph)

   (<BinaryNumber>, "10")
   (<DecimalNumber>, "10")

and, yes, if the literal is associated with both the
datatypes BinaryNumber and DecimalNumber, then it is
asserted to denote a value for both datatypes.

If that is a contradiction, i.e.

   (<BinaryNumber>, "10") != (<DecimalNumber>, "10")

where both datatype interpretations are applied to
the same value node, then that has to be dealt with,
but that is not a issue for the representation of or
interpretation of those assertions.

Eh?

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 24 January 2002 10:22:27 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:59 EDT