W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

RE: designating datatypes

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 15:41:07 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90BC2@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext pat hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu]
> Sent: 21 February, 2003 20:09
> To: Dave Beckett
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: designating datatypes
> Dave, you might be interested in a change Im proposing to the 
> datatypes section in the semantics document, as follows, in response 
> to a comment by Peter. It introduces the 'name' as an integral part 
> of a datatype. This is a patch and if you can think of a better 
> terminology and a pointer to a suitable spec I  would be delighted.
> -Pat
> ------
> 3.4 Dattayped interpretations
> A datatype is an entity named by a uriref and characterized by a set 
> of character strings called lexical forms and a mapping from that set 
> to a set of values. (The built-in datatype rdf:XMLLiteral, 
> exceptionally, allows pairs in its lexical space.) Exactly how these 
> sets and mapping are defined is a matter external to RDF.
> Formally, we will describe a datatype d as a 4-tuple consisting of
> 1. A uriref called the name of d
> 2. A set of character strings called the lexical space of d
> 3. A set called the value space of d
> 4. A mapping L2V(d) from the lexical space of d to the value space of 
> d, called the lexical-to-value mapping of d

So you're telling me that

   ex:foo daml:equivalentTo xsd:integer .

is then semantically invalid, since the "name" in the formal 
definition of xsd:integer is *xsd:integer* and I can't say
"10"^^ex:foo and given the above statement mean the same
thing as "10"^^xsd:integer?!!!

If so, then I am adamantly opposed to this change.

I've yet to understand Peter's need for this change, even after
a good deal of private interchange with him, and remain completely
unconvinced that this is necessary.

It seems to me to be in direct conflict with the very core of RDF,
that URIs denote resources without any requirement that the URI
be an inherent part of those resources in any way.

Pat, if you can, please justify this change to the WG (or at
least me).


Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 08:41:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:04 UTC