RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

[...]
> I may simply have not been following the point properly. Coming from
> logic, I have an acute sense of the difference between information
> which is conveyed as part of the very syntax of a language, and that
> conveyed by making assertions in the language. This seems like a very
> sharp and important distinction to me. My understanding of the
> proposal was that the syntactic encoding of, say, integers implicit
> in the notion of literal was to be abandoned and replaced by an
> assertional encoding in RDF triples. That may be a good idea, but it
> does potentially throw away a lot of valuable properties implicit in
> the syntactic typing of literals. However, if this proposal is better
> thought of as one to introduce a more uniform notion of syntactic
> typing for URIs in general, then I'm all for it. Sorry if my
> ignorance is a barrier to communication.

that is indeed the crucial point!
let me refer to our "tangent point" testcase
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint.n3
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-facts.n3
which is making use of "an assertional encoding in RDF triples"
(think about log:implies as an entailment between graphs)
I think this example should make use of some (primitive)
datatypes, but only to a certain extent, because when
the granularity is too big, I don't see straightforward
inferincing capability to have answers to such questions as
  http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-query.n3
especially while having a given point within the circle
(2 complex solutions) which is later maybe "ruled" out by
the inference engine (using further rules of course).

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

PS the pair of tangent points is given in
   http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-result.n3 :-)