- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 17:46:18 -0700
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat, I'm thinking of how composite literals may be potentially introduced in the MT document, and what the implications of that could be. A first shot at MT of datatyping could be this: assuming that literal constants are pairs of kind (URI, unicode string), let the URIs (resource constants) be mapped to resources as before using function IS. Additionally, one could define a mapping IDT from IR into the powerset of LV that maps each datatype-resource to its extension, namely, the set of all literals that correspond to this datatype. For example, if X001 is an interpretation of resource constant [http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes, integer], so the extension of the datatype XOO1, i.e. IDT(X001), would include all "integer" literals. Some general comments on MT: I very much welcome your move towards a cleaner separation between RDF and RDFS. I think it maybe worth it to emphasize the point that other languages (besides RDFS) can be layered on top of RDF, and to illustrate how their semantics can be defined incrementally (e.g., using the I-mappings of the underlying languages). In this light, RDFS-MT could be presented as a proof-of-concept of how this layering is done. A minor comment: could you make sure that all symbols are introduced in the same section (or are summarized in a table)? For example, most of the definitions are in 1.4, but LV and XL appear first in 1.3. Another issue, which I raised in my previous email, is a consistent naming of constants vs. individuals in the domain of discourse (e.g. resource constant and literal constant instead of URI and literal, or something like this). Thanks for your work on the MT document! Sergey
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 20:20:55 UTC