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: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 19:47:47 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510101ab7e7f93d8944@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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 .

That is certainly a coherent position. Literals are self-denoting 
character strings, but they can have properties. That makes perfect 
semantic sense and would simplify the model theory, if anything. 
However it means that numerals don't denote numbers, which will be 
widely thought to be a bummer, I suspect.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 8 October 2001 20:47:53 UTC

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