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

Re: Datatyping differences

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 28 Jan 2002 06:42:25 -0600
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1012221745.4865.175.camel@dirk>
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 03:11, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> On 2002-01-25 19:22, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote:
> 
[...]
> > What's necessarily
> > the case is that in S, "30" denotes the same thing in all
> > interpretaions, but in TDL it doesn't.
> 
> In TDL (though not perhaps the current TDL MT, which should
> be revised) a literal is a literal is a literal. In the
> graph, it simply is a string that, IFF paired with a datatype,
> may be interpreted as a lexical form (a member of the lexical
> space of that datatype).
> 
> This is just as with S.
> 
> However, I do disagree with the statement that "30" always
> denotes the same thing in all interpretations -- as its
> interpretation is context specific, either per a given
> predicate or explicitly defined typing (local or global).

I don't know how to have a conversation like this.

I'm using the word "interpretation" in the technical
sense of our model theory working draft. I can't
make sense of "its interpretation is context specific".
You seem to have switched to some informal
use of the word "interpretation".


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 08:40:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:44:01 EDT