- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 5 Nov 2001 19:49:29 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Still somehow that does not sit right with my intuitions. In rdf schema I >want >> to say that the value of a property is an integer; after parsing I don't >much >> care whether is was represented in decimal, binary or hieroglyphics. rdf >schema >> is about describing the data model, not the syntactic representation. > >Exactly. It is up to the lexical representation itself to provide >information such as the base used in the representation. Such >distinctions which are only relevant to representation should not >be tied to the identity of the data type itself. "Hexidecimal encoded >integer" is not a data type. Ah, I think I see why we misunderstood one another. You are using 'datatype' to refer to the set of things, and I am using it to refer to lexical-to-value mapping. However, let me take up your point directly. We have a distinction available between a class as an intensional object, and the set of things in its extension. It *is* possible to think of Hexadecimal EI as a class in the first sense, even though it has the same extension as, say, DEI and OEI and even BEI. If we associate datatyping conventions (ie lexical-to-value mappings) with such classes, then being told that a certain literal is in the class 'hexadecimal encoded integer' may be sufficient to enable a reasoner to infer that it should use the appropriate datatyping conventions to interpret that literal . That is precisely the way that the proposed model theory extension works. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 5 November 2001 20:49:28 UTC