RE: (offlist) Re: Datatyping Summary

At 01:03 PM 1/30/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Though I'd very much like your comments to my question in
> > my MT commments to Pat, that insofar as the actual denoted
> > values are concerned, I wonder if either TDL or S can
> > ensure entailment, since RDF is stuck with non-canonical
> > lexical forms. C.f. the last comment in
> >
>
>My ideal outcome for the datatyping discussion is something like we agree on
>TDL or S-P (perhaps with an S-A idiom but S-P semantics) and then Pat works
>his model theoretic magic so that the literal strings somehow vanish from
>the model theory.
>
>I, never having got passed the apprentice stage, can't weave such wonders.

Jeremy,

Did my thoughts on an MT for TDL make any sense to you?

Essentially, I was treating literals like blank nodes, but with some extra 
conditions.

Originally, I started using a mapping from literal nodes to datatype map 
members, a bit like Pat's "A" for blank nodes, then felt I could could say 
the same thing without it.

I've sent of copy of that bit of my note to the archive, with some links to 
Jeremy's related notes, available at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/0147.html

#g
--



------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
        __
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
  \/___________/