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

Re: Datatyping - abstract syntax - test case

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:18:37 +0300
Message-ID: <003201c25a67$4917e7f0$864416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "\"Patrick Stickler\" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I'm happy to chat about it, if Jeremy is interested. 

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 50) 483 9453, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; ""Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 September, 2002 20:05
Subject: RE: Datatyping - abstract syntax - test case


> At 15:04 11/09/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> >[[Discussion on values or datatype-lexical pairs in abstract syntax]]
> >
> >We differ in opinion on this.
> >I don't believe it is vital one way of the other.
> >Can I ask the chair to table telecon time on this topic.
> 
> Sure, but you and Patrick might like to get on the phone and sort out 
> precisely where you have an issue.
> 
> BTW, I note that your proposal would mean that the abstract syntax would 
> have an alphabet that included the reals, i.e. is not countable.  Such 
> things sometimes matter to mathematicians, no doubt because their proofs 
> rely on countability.  I trust we are all right on that score?
> 
> Shooting in the dark
> Brian
> 
> 
> >I think the test case would suffice as input.
> >
> >
> >Jeremy
> 
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:20:11 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:59 EDT