W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: datatypes and MT

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 18:55:02 -0600
Message-Id: <p0510102db80ce3d46ba6@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 02:56 AM 11/4/01 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>>  > I'm sorry, I'm being thick again.  What's the advantage exactly?  To whom?
>>>  this advantage differentiate DanC's proposal from the others?
>>>  What I see above is the A & B => A.  Which is true, but I miss the
>>   [ rdfs:str "10" ]
>>is what we call the 'least common unifier' of
>>   [ rdfs:str "10" ] and [ rdfs:str "10"; rdf:type dt:decimal ]
>>and we found that a useful thing for inferencing
>>that's basically all we wanted to say
>>(so 'advantage' was rather subjective)
>Let's see if I read this correctly:  sometimes, the only thing one 
>knows about some property, and the only thing one needs to know, is 
>that it has a value with a given lexical representation.

Right. Put another way, all one needs to know about some classes is 
that their members are supposed to be computed from a given lexical 
representation. (Class= range of property)

>So, returning to my DTLS, DTVS, DTLV musings [1]:
>- Sometimes, we know/express a value in DTLS (the literal space) -- 
>the case noted above.
>- Sometimes, we know that the value of some node is in DTVS (the 
>value space) -- this corresponds to the view of data type as 
>describing a value space (The view I think Brian is expressing).  Of 
>itself, this doesn't help us express a particular value.

No, but *together with the literal itself* it enables you to figure 
out the value intended. It disambiguates the literal, if you like. 
That's all it needs to do; the literal itself provides the particular 
value, once you know how to interpret it.

>- Sometimes, we know a particular value in DTVS;  but to *express* 
>this value, we need a corresponding value in DTLS

But the literal itself IS the particular value in DTLS. We don't need 
another name for it: we have it in our syntax already. We don't have 
to even mention or refer to it at all; we just have to know how to 
interpret it.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 19:55:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC