Re: datatyping discussion

At 04:09 PM 10/22/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>I think that a key benefit of Dan's approach is that the above statement 
>>still results in a graph arc:
>>
>>    < I(subject), I(property), I("literal") >
>>
>>where other approaches seem to suggest that this should not be generated, 
>>but instead that some pair of graph arcs should be generated.
>
>This is exactly why I like the 'implicit datatyping' approach; it leaves 
>literal subjects absolutely alone. However, I can't follow how Dan's 
>proposal does this, unless it also somehow allows literals to be subjects. 
>Doesn't he suggest transcribing the literal value 10.0 as the N3 form [ 
>rdf:value "10.0"], which requires rewriting the above as
>
><I(subject), I(property), thing>
><thing, I(rdf:value), literal>

For clarification:  the advantage that I perceived was that this approach 
involved not a rewrite, but an augmentation.  Thus the original triple 
value remains, and is still true in any interpretation that also satisfies 
the additional type-related triples.

>>I see Dan's approach as allowing the other arcs to be added to the graph 
>>if they're needed (and the appropriate information is available).
>
>Right, so does the Hayes/Patel-Schneider approach.

Yes... I think I'm coming to see that.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Tuesday, 23 October 2001 08:07:05 UTC