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

Re: Strange behaviour of datatypes test A1 with answer yes and literals untidy

From: Drew McDermott <drew.mcdermott@yale.edu>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 18:04:15 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200207192204.g6JM4FG07341@pantheon-po04.its.yale.edu>
To: www-rdf-logic@w3.org



   [Pat Hayes]
   Brian has not published the full gory details behind his example. 
   Allow me to fill them in, so you can better appreciate the reasoning 
   involved here. But be warned, before reading further, that this may 
   corrupt your intuitions so badly that your opinions on the test cases 
   may become worthless.

Too late!

   We (the WG, that is) found ourselves caught unable to come to a clear 
   decision between the two extreme positions of complete tidyness 
   (literals are unique, have a fixed denotation) and complete 
   untidyiness (literals can mean anything, and different occurrences of 
   the same literal can mean different things.) So we have been trying 
   to find intermediate positions which capture the best of both worlds. 
   One of these positions (we have tried many of them) is the following: 
   literals are syntactically tidy (ie like urirefs, there can be only 
   one node per literal per graph) but semantically untidy, in that the 
   way that the literal is interpreted might depend on the triple in 
   which it is considered; in particular, it might be a function of the 
   pair consisting of the literal itself and  the property of the 
   triple.  

Perhaps it's my corrupted intuitions, but it seems to me that
syntactic tidiness is beside the point, merely a technical detail.  To
be untidy is to be semantically untidy.

                                             -- Drew McDermott
Received on Friday, 19 July 2002 18:04:20 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT