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

Re: rdfs:StringLiteral

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:50:54 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b0bb9e70e6bdfd2@[65.217.30.130]>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
>To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
>Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>Sent: 30 October, 2002 19:50
>Subject: RE: rdfs:StringLiteral
>
>
>>
>>  >thanks Patrick I misspoke.
>>  >
>>  >Should all datatypes be subclass of rdfs:Literal; or maybe only 
>>the datatype
>>  >xsd:string should be a subclass of rdfs:Literal
>>
>>  My understanding is that rdfs:Literal is the class of all possible
>>  literal values.
>
>"literal values" sounds like an oxymoron to me. We have either
>lexical forms or values,

I meant the values. All of them, that is: integers and strings and 
uris and whatever. Anything that can be mapped into a value space 
from a literal. Anything that a literal can denote.

>and if the L2V mapping happens to map
>a lexical form to a value that is string equal to the lexical
>form,, fine, but one can still argue that both exist insofar
>as the semantics are concerned.

Well, they might well exist, but the question is, which of them are 
in the class? It isn't very useful to have a class of *syntactic* 
things, unless we also have some way to refer to those syntactic 
things.

>Do you mean "lexical forms"?

NO!! That's why I said literal VALUES.

>hen while we can say that
>rdfs:Literal is the class of all possible lexical forms, I don't
>see how that fits into RDFS Class semantics, since that is a
>syntactic based membership and not a semantic one.

Yes, exactly. My message was to the effect that rdf:Literal is NOT a 
class of lexical forms.

>
>I personally consider rdfs:Literal to be a bug. Its membership is
>defined by M&S as a set of structural components of the graph, not
>the denotation of members of a class.

That isn't the way I read the M&S, and that interpretation has never 
been in any version of the MT. I agree however that the M&S is highly 
unclear on this point, as on many others, and in particular is rife 
with use/mention confusions in any case. SO to hell with trying to 
deconstruct the M&S: what do WE want rdf:Literal to mean?

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:51:04 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:36 EDT