- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 20:28:05 +0100
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Can I try to clarify what I think you're saying... Different occurrences of a literal within a graph may map to different values, but that these mappings are fixed, and may not change when a different interpretation is used for the graph. Noodling... [a Shoe] decimalSize [ a type:Integer ; rdf:value "10" ] ; sizeLabel [ a type:String ; rdf:value "10" ] . The intent here is that the first occurrence is mapped to an integer, and the second to a string. BUT, doesn't this depend in some way on the interpretation of type:Integer and type:String? #g -- At 12:36 PM 10/10/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: >Peter, after my mini-epiphany during the telecon yesterday, I had an even >better one :-). I think that there is a very tiny, if unconventional, >change to the RDF MT which will allow it to accommodate smoothly to your >(or anyone else's) proposed treatment of literals: simply say (with some >explanatory prose :-) that the XL mapping is a fixed mapping from literal >TOKENS to literal values. That is, it allows one occurrence of ><whatever>05</whatever> to denote an integer and another one to denote a >string, just as long as they each denote the same thing in every >interpretation. This allows both the case where every literal is simply a >string which denotes itself, and it also allows the extreme other case >where an elaborate external datatyping process assigns special values in >all sorts of ways. However, it does insist that each literal label token >has a fixed interpretation; it doesn't tolerate ambiguity of any >*particular* literal label. I don't want to allow that kind of ambiguity. > >This will leave entirely mysterious how anyone or anything could determine >what the actual denotation of any particular literal token actually is, of >course. That is assumed to be done somehow, but is outside the scope of >the MT itself. > >With this change in wording, the actual equations can remain as they are. > >Would that be sufficient flexibility for you, along with allowing IR to >consist of both resources and literal values, so that rdfs:Literal doesn't >force literal values to be resources? > >Pat > >PS I'm cross-posting this to both groups in case anyone can see a fatal >objection. > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >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 ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 15:38:18 UTC