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

Re: TDL Model Theory

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:26:09 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101024b8773625660c@[65.212.118.208]>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>  >               Idiom P in this MT requires the range of a
>>  property to be a literal-value pair. But that is wrong, for P. If I
>>  want to say that the range of a property is xsd:integer, I mean to
>>  say that the range is whatever xsd says integers are, ie the value,
>>  not a literal-value pair. One hundred and twenty-three is an integer;
>>  the pair <'123',123> is not an integer (according to XSD).
>
>Short version:
>
>P and S-B have rdfs:range as referring to the value space.
>S-A has rdfs:range as referring to the lexical space.
>My proposal explores the third possibility of having rdfs:range as referring
>to the map.
>
>I don't think there are any a priori reasons that rule that out. It is our
>model theory and we are free to choose what parts of the world get modelled
>where.

Oh sure, its your model theory, and there is no reason to rule it out 
a priori. I guess maybe I was reading too much into the section 
heading that referred to P, assuming that this meant to say that this 
was an accurate rendering of the old P idiom.

However, I still think that most people who write something like

foo rdfs:range xsd:integer .

would intend to be saying that the range of foo was integers as defined by xsd.

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 Friday, 25 January 2002 11:25:58 EST

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