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

Re: attempting to remove confusion RE: designating datatypes

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:20:16 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b02ba82b4818540@[10.0.100.86]>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>This topic is beginning to generate long emails which may be 
>redundant if the cause is a minor confusion.  If so maybe we can 
>save a little effort.
>
>At 10:52 25/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote:
>
>>>I think I agree with Patrick on this one.
>>>
>>>The last call WDs show a URI denoting a datatype but not part of the
>>>datatype denoted.
>>
>>Lets forget about 'part of'.
>
>I think that's the term that caused the problem, and that Pat just 
>withdrew it.
>
>The cause of the problem is that folks (including me) are worried 
>that Pat is proposing a change to what a datatype is, and since we 
>are using the XML Schema datatype model, that could be a problem.
>
>Having read the latest MT doc:
>
>   http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#dtype_interp
>
>I don't think that is what is happening, but I'm not sure.  I think 
>the new semantics doc hasn't changed what a datatypes is, but has 
>introduced the URIREF of the datatype into the *formal machinery* 
>describing the semantics of the datatype,

Right, nice way to put it.

>which is probably ok.
>
>Lets try a test case.  From
>
>   http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#datatype
>
>[[
>[Definition:]  In this specification, a datatype is a 3-tuple, 
>consisting of a) a set of distinct values, called its ·value space·, 
>b) a set of lexical representations, called its ·lexical space·, and 
>c) a set of ·facet·s that characterize properties of the ·value 
>space·, individual values or lexical items.
>]]
>
>So xsd:decimal denotes a 3-tuple, and the URIREF of the datatype is 
>not a component of the 3-tuple, nor is it 'part-of' any component of 
>the 3-tuple.
>
>Pat, does the semantics document say anything that conflicts with 
>this statement?

No, that is fine. (Well, the XML text omits the L2V mapping, but 
that's their problem...) I'm happy to say that a datatype IS whatever 
it always has been, but I also want to say that it HAS a name 
(provided by its external maker) and that we are obliged to treat 
that name as denoting that triple-thingie.

I really don't see this as a change to anything other than the way 
that the MT expresses itself; but Peter was right to point out that 
there was a lacuna in the LC version, since it didn't make this 'use 
the given name properly' specification clear. We have consistently 
obeyed this convention ourselves, of course, from day one: there's 
never been any doubt that the URIref 'xsd:integer' really does refer 
to the datatype xsd:integer, right?

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973   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 Wednesday, 26 February 2003 13:20:21 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:53 EDT