W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2002

Re: TDL

From: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2002 10:53:04 -0800
Message-ID: <002c01c1ace4$03240de0$657ba8c0@c1457248a.sttls1.wa.home.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Logic" <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
From: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

> Well, I think that the MT should be able to make clear
> the fact that if you have a TDL pairing (lexical form
> and datatype context) then you have an unambiguous
> denotation for a single mapping between a lexical form
> and a value (between a member of the lexical space of
> the datatype and its corresponding single member of
> the value space of the same datatype). So the extra
> triple would be superfluous insofar as the interpretation
> is concerned.

Ok I can see now that the extra triple is irrelevant.  I'm sure I have
missed some subtleties in  this controversy.  But it seems to me that the
global idiom entails the local idiom and visa versa in a straight forward
manner:

(<=>
     (?p ?X  ?V)
     ((exists ?n)
          (and
              (type ?n ?T)
              (value ?n ?V)
              (range ?p ?T)
           )
      )
)

See http://robustai.net/mentography/dataTyping2.gif

So if its all just entailment of triples to triples what's the big problem
with the MT?  Sorry, I keep trying to figure out what the MT gives us that
formula like the above don't.

Seth Russell
Received on Sunday, 3 February 2002 13:56:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:41 GMT