- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 20:43:26 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 06:55 PM 11/5/01 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: > >>>So, returning to my DTLS, DTVS, DTLV musings [1]: >>> >>>- Sometimes, we know/express a value in DTLS (the literal space) >>>-- the case noted above. > >(I meant to say "lexical space"). > >>>- 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. > >Hmmm... When you say "the literal itself", do you mean the lexical string? > >(I've tried to use the terms "literal string" and "literal value" to >distinguish the lexical and value spaces, but I may have slipped in >places.) > >I think we agree, but I'd prefer to say that we need a mapping >scheme (my DTLV) to express a given value as a string. That >provides your "once we 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. > >I don't see how that's different from what I'm saying. > >There is a number value that designates the number of fingers on >both of my hands. I understand that number on various ways, some >not linguistic. That is my value in DTVS. I want to express that >number in a text-based communication, so I need a lexical >representation for it. Commonly, I might use "10" and many people >would understand how to interpret it. An ancient Roman might have >used "X". An early computer programmer might have used "1010" or >"12" or "A". These are all different literal strings (in some DTLS >or other). I don't see these as inventing "another name": they're >lexical representations of the given number value under different >mapping schemes (DTLV). OK, sorry. I was getting my rhetorical wires crossed. I agree with everything you say here, very nicely put (might be worth recording for the primer?) 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 Tuesday, 6 November 2001 21:43:38 UTC