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

Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Damian Steer <D.M.Steer@lse.ac.uk>
Date: 04 Feb 2002 19:41:54 +0000
To: RDF Logic <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Message-ID: <m1lme9c9vh.fsf@evila.danbri.org>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> writes:

> On 2002-02-04 17:52, "ext Damian Steer" <D.M.Steer@lse.ac.uk> wrote:
> 
> 
> > TDL's method, which doesn't require those clauses, appears much more
> > troublesome. <"0.0",0> != <"0",0> is a typical problem.
> 
> This is a problem with all datatyping proposals that RDF could
> consider, since RDF cannot escape non-canonical lexical forms
> and thus more than one lexical form can denote the same value
> in for a given datatype.
> 
> > This is hardly an original thought (it was discussed on Friday), but
> > could somebody explain why TDL does this? I can see hope for the
> > 'almost a function' approach, but not for the lexical-value pairs.
> 
> Well, not to disparage Jeremy's efforts at providing an MT for
> TDL (which I am not capable of doing and for which I am very
> very grateful to Jeremy for his contributions), the particular approach
> he took, that of the lexical-value pairing, is not exactly the
> same as the basic concept behind TDL, which is more I think
> along the lines of your 'almost a function' approach, and pairs
> the lexical form (literal) with the URI of the datatype as
> a basis for interpretation rather than a lexical form and a
> value.
> 

Actually I was confused. Jeremy's MT was doing what I suggested. It is
the pairing itself that confuses me.

So rather than denoting < lexical value, value > you want <datatype,
lexical value>? I can't see that that helps at all. < float, "0" > !=
< float, "0.0" >.

But perhaps you mean <float, "0"> is syntactic, to be interpreted
as the float 'function' (denoted by 'float') operating on "0", i.e. 0?
Which sounds right, if you can fiddle it for the case of
non-functions.

Thanks,

Damian

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (Darwin)
Comment: Processed by Mailcrypt 3.5.6 and Gnu Privacy Guard <http://www.gnupg.org/>

iD8DBQE8XuQCAyLCB+mTtykRAhfCAJ9ZhLZ7q6hYqNtuR8W6I7V0orPHVgCg2hoF
OiF/9KlccpvVYoEzxtj9LFM=
=QBxQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 15:16:05 GMT

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