- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 13:32:24 -0400
- To: Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net>
- Cc: "Sandro Hawke" <sandro@w3.org>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, Garret Wilson <garret@globalmentor.com>, Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Story Henry <henry.story@bblfish.net> writes: > > Therefore, X is a datatype if and only if X is an > > owl:FunctionalProperty > > and the rdfs:domain of X contains only Unicode strings. > > well I was proposing in addition that it be a necessary truth, ie it > necessarily identify the thing that way, which will bring up some > fun problems, but I think that the intuition behind datatypes is > something along those lines. ... > >> This can only work > >> of course if all the information is contained in the String, ie, > >> there is not more information to be got from anywhere else, or else > >> there would be no way to create a decision procedure for it. So > >> "George Bush"^^xxx:presidents would not work. For one, George Bush > >> may never have been president. > > > > But it's easy for me to construct the mapping you quoted above. So I > > can't understand what you mean. A datatype like eg:uspresidents makes > > every bit as much sense as a datatype like xs:date. > > That would not work with eg:uspresidents, because Bush could have had > a different name, and could also not have been president. > > With numbers on the other hand it is different. Even though 10 could > be written differently than "10" > > 10 xsd:int "10". > > is necessarily true. So you're saying the distinction is that datatype lexical representation strings are rigid designators [1] ? Hmmm. Let me think this through.... Again, I'll return to my example of dates, rather than integers, since their being socially constructed is more obvious. There was an instant where I paused, in writing this sentence, to record the time. That instant is named in RDF as "2007-08-02T17:14:39"^^xs:dateTime. Is that a rigid designator? In a world where the Gregorian calendar corrections were never adopted, that instant would be named something more like ``"2007-08-16T17:14:39"^^xs:dateTime''. (etc, etc, with all the different ways we could do calendars and clocks.) I think I would argue that URIs are rigid designators, so the example above fails because I used "xs:dateTime" to name a different mapping. In the first case it's the Gregorian calendar dateTime; in the second it's some pseudo-Julian calendar dateTime. But the string itself, "2007-08-16T17:14:39" is meaningless/useless without being paired like that. It's not the rigid designator itself. Similarly, my term eg:uspresidents rigidly designates the pairs of names and presidents in my world. So, yes, "George W. Bush"^^eg:uspresidents is a rigid designator -- it necessarily refers to the current president of the US in my world. Isn't that right? -- Sandro [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rigid_designator
Received on Thursday, 2 August 2007 17:34:13 UTC