W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:18:57 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101021b82c55f6a9a5@[65.212.118.149]>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
>From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
>Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:57:49 +0200
>
>[...]
>>
>>  If the data type does not define a lexical space, then
>>  no mechanism is going to work. Either there's a defined
>>  mapping from lexical form to value or there isn't. It
>>  is therefore enough to identify that pairing of lexical
>>  form (literal) to data type (URI) in order to denote the
>>  value.
>
>The problem is not that the datatypes don't meet your conditions above, the
>problem occurs when two datatypes share some data values, but disagree on
>how to to the lexical-to-value mapping.  If the typing comes from RDF(S),
>then it may be the case that a literal gets these two datatypes.  Then the
>value for that literal is ambiguous.

Or maybe contradictory. Well, true, but so what? That is exactly what 
one would expect from RDF(S) (or from DAML, for that matter); it is 
always possible to give too little information, and when one does, 
the result is ambiguous; and similarly, it is also possible, 
sometimes, to give too much information, and the result may then be 
contradictory. I don't see this as being a problem.

Pat Hayes
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 16:18:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT