W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > January 2002

Re: PD datatyping doc plans

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:00:08 +0200
To: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: <www-archive@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B864D8A8.B805%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

To clarify, I will intend to write up a section on PD comparable to
section 4 of Sergey's document, as well as my changes to section 3
which presume an S-level of resolution, and will then send that to
you for review and the infusion of the math.

How does that sound?

Patrick


On 2002-01-11 16:21, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> note I've moved off-list, but copying to www-archive.
> This allows the conversion to be public domain but not in-your-face for
> the
> rest of the group.
> 
> Assuming the telecon OKs the plan we've just agreed, I suggest we
> propose
> that we do our work off-list in this way. This should help reduce RDF
> Core
> bandwidth utilisation.
> 
> I like your pictures, I think they are really helpful.
> 
> I think we should decide which horse to back and forget the others for
> now.
> 
> My reckoning is that S is leading the race, and PL is in the race, and
> both
> are different from the sort of solutions we have been in favour of.
> 
> For me, the race will be won on rdf-interest (not rdf-core), hence the
> familiarity of the PD proposal is IMO the key.
> 
> So I suggest restricting our write-up to PD, and forgetting, for now, U
> and
> P++.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> 
> On the maths ...
> 
> Your suggested framework ...
> 
> [[[[[
> 
> 1. Take up to section 4.1 as a starting point (rework section 3 and
>  remove sections 4.2 onwards, including section 5).
> 
> 2. Add math in or following section 4.1 that states that for any pairing
> 
>      (lexical_form, data_type_URIref)
> 
>  there is one and only one mapping
> 
>      (lexical_form, data_value)
> 
>  between the lexical space and value space of that data type.
> 
> Surely the math for this is straightforward (I wish I could provide it).
> 
> 3. Add final sections detailing the idioms P and D, how they define such
>  pairings of lexical form and data type.
> 
> ]]]]]]]
> 
> I started thinking about this and got a bit of nervous.
> 
> So far, we have decided not to have a processing model for RDF: step 3
> above
> looks like creeping towards one, and overall this looks like an extra
> layer
> in our analysis.
> 
> I am beginning to see the attraction of trying to do it all in the model
> theory, which, as far as I understand, Pat made a stab at in:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0011.html
> 
> "Datatypes and MT"
> 
> I am beginning to feel that I need to bite the bullet and build on top
> of
> Pat's work and actually do some model theory.
> 
> Then your diagrams and some text would be the informal part, and we
> simply
> wouldn't have the intermediate level math that would actually be useful
> to
> an implementor!
> 
> My understanding is the MT route that we have taken overall is a
> decision to
> leave implementation to implementators and to prioritise being clear
> over
> being at the right level for implementators.
> 
> I am flying out to the WebOnt F2F this weekend, I will try and have a
> stab
> at PD model theory on the plane. ("stab" is perhaps an unfortunate turn
> of
> phrase).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 10:59:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:15 GMT