- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 12:47:45 -0600
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > -----Original Message----- >> From: ext Pat Hayes [mailto:phayes@ai.uwf.edu] >> Sent: 15 November, 2001 03:26 >> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) >> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org >> Subject: RE: DATATYPES: mental dump. >> >> >> > >> > > Yes, I do. I think that part of my overall feeling of >> confusion comes >> >> from the fact that we don't seem to have a crisp >> definition of what >> >> constitutes a datatype or a datatyping scheme >> > >> >How about the one defined by XML Schema, and also adopted by the X >> >proposal and 'lit:' ontology, namely a paired value space and >> >lexical space, the latter of which may have a canonical subset. >> >> Right, I am happy with that, as long as 'paired' includes the mapping >> between the lexical and value spaces. That is pretty much what Peter >> and I were using as the definition as well. >> >> Maybe we can all agree about something :-) > >Well.... > >I am still unsure just what you mean by "mapping". I just mean in it the ordinary mathematical sense. A correspondence between two sets of things. Call it a function if you like, or a morphism, or a set of ordered pairs, or whatever. The point being that it isn't enough to JUST give the lexical and the value spaces; you have to say HOW the datatype maps one into the other. For example, let me define a rather silly datatype that might be called regetni, where the lexical and value spaces are just like xsd:integer, but the mapping between them reads the numerals backwards, so that "12" means twenty-one and "0034" means four thousand three hundred. The lexical and value spaces are the same, but the mapping is different. >I am happy saying that a pairing of a lexical form (literal) >with a data type (URI) together *denote* a value in the >value space of the data type. > >But... ;-) > >I don't see how you could actually express the explicit >*mapping* from lexical form to that actual value Right, I'm not talking about a mapping that could be *computed* by anything. >..... >If by 'includes a mapping' you simply mean that we explicitly >state that in the pairing of lexical form and data type >the lexical form corresponds to one and only one member of >the value space for the data type, with no attempt to offer >any representation of that value, then I think we're in >full agreement. Right, I think we are. 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 Thursday, 15 November 2001 13:47:24 UTC