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

Re: Comments on ioctl (was: Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13))

From: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Date: Mon, 08 Oct 2001 15:31:20 +0200
Message-ID: <3BC1AAA8.6000302@profium.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

Aaron Swartz wrote:

> On Monday, October 8, 2001, at 08:02  AM, Martyn Horner wrote:
>> Maybe I missed something in the argument but does `denotation' 
>> distinguish between numerals (literals) denoting numbers and numerals 
>> (literals) denoting, say, dates. So the literal "20001225" has, at 
>> least, two denotations? Does this invalidate this definition? Do you 
>> mean `unique denotation'? If you don't, how does this definition stay 
>> valid?
> It's my belief that the literal "20001225" denotes itself, and 
> properties like :creationDate are really shorthand for 
> :creationDateStringInXXXForm .

Perhaps so. But on the way to its real `meaning', it's futile to pretend 
that the string "20001225" denotes the number `twenty million, one 
thousand, two hundred and twenty-five' because it doesn't. Which is, I 
think, the test of denotation behind Pat's definition.

And I think, just `denoting itself' isn't really what he meant either.

Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
Profium, Les Espaces de Sophia,
Immeuble Delta, B.P. 037, F-06901 Sophia-Antipolis, France
Tel. +33 (0) Fax. +33 (0)
Mob. +33 (0) Internet: http://www.profium.com
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 09:31:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC