> >I thought that the idea here was to see how literals could be given a >reasonable meaning. Just to clarify: that is not the intention of the model theory. It tries to keep as aloof as possible from any questions about what literals are, or how they get their meaning. I agree this needs to be spelled out eventually, and once the language issues are settled I would like to try to do so, along the lines you suggest: >One way of proceeding is to require that the meaning of a >literal be completely carried in its lexical form. Quite, an excellent maxim. But speaking as a model-theorist, I want to wait until the notion of 'lexical form' is *extremely* sharp before attempting to make this precise. >This would break much >existing RDF, I think. I hope not, and don't think it would, in fact, if 'lexical form' is done right. But lets not get into that now. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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/~phayesReceived on Friday, 28 September 2001 16:48:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C0.50 : Wednesday, 11 January 2006 15:19:09 GMT