- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Thu, 04 Apr 2002 14:06:55 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
All, I don't have as much time for reading drafts these days, so I'm waiting for the datatyping draft to be declared reasonably stable before I tackle it. Thus my comments below are in response to Jeremy's comments rather that to Patrick's work-in-progress draft. At 12:36 PM 4/4/02 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >Patrick, > >if I have understood your comments about datatype interpretation correctly >then I believe that: > >---- > ><ex:age> <rdfd:range> <xsd:integer> . ><Jane> <ex:age> "25" . > >datatype entails > ><Jane> <ex:age> _:b . >_:b <xsd:integer> "25" . Based on my reading of Pat's "tidy literals" draft, I certainly didn't expect that entailment. Offhand, I'm not seeing that this entailment in any way non-monotonic. >--- > >something that Pat seemed to shy away from saying in section 5. > >This continues to worry me because then in something like webont or DAML we >can't say that ex:age has a unique value, because <Jane> has two really >different ages: 25 the integer (i.e. the same age as <John> and <Judy>) and >"25" the string (i.e the same as the <bar> of <foo>). Ah, I see your worry. It doesn't look like a pretty basis for building the higher layers. >The positive suggestions I intend to list as alternatives for escaping the >problems I see are: >- don't do datatyping >- drop tidy literals and don't have any model theory for datatyping >- drop tidy literals and don't support the datateype property idiom (aka >S-A) >- don't support the inline idiom (aka S-B) >- drop tidy literals and buy Pat's sophistry >[[[ >These two forms - the single triple with a literal as object, and the >similar triple with a bnode as object, together with a lexical form triple >linking the bnode to the literal - are identical in meaning and can be >substituted freely for one another. >]]] > >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0614.html > >I strongly prefer the last of these, and remain convinced that the costs of >the current proposal in terms of loss of monotonicity or loss of mono-valued >functions is unacceptable. > >Please remember the process no longer requires my points to be addressed >(unless at the director's insistence). It is, IMO, more important to produce >a document for the community to see than to address my concerns. For the group's information, and also not expecting any reconsideration at this time, I agree with Jeremy on the technical points. The earlier proposal at http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html, not having tidy literals, looks better to me. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 08:11:22 UTC