Re: Denotation of datatype values

On 2002-04-16 18:56, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


>> If RDF Datatyping cannot provide a consistent and unambiguous
>> interpretation resulting in a specific datatype value, then
>> we're just wasting our time.
> 
> Well, maybe, but as I understand things according to Pat's last proposal:
> 
>    Jenny age "10" .
>    age rdfd:range xsd:integer .
> 
> Tells us _only_ that the thing denoted by the node at the sharp end of
> "age" is the 2-character string "10".  Which is exactly what you have in
> absence of the rdfd:range statement.

I'm not saying otherwise.

> As far as it goes, that's pretty clear and unambiguous.  But to conclude
> that Jenny's age is defined by the number 10 would be to draw upon
> information that is not sanctioned by the graph and its model theory.

But I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the combination of the
inline idiom and the rdfd:range/datatype assertion designates
the pairing <xsd:integer, "10"> and that pairing is the basis
for any datatyping interpretation. I.e., the knowledge in the
graph unambiguously identifies a single value by designating
a datatyped literal pairing. What that actual
value is, we don't know *at this level*. But at a higher level
where the full knowledge of xsd:integer is available, then
we know that the pairing <xsd:integer, "10"> identifies the
value ten.

The RDF Datatyping MT is not saying the value is ten. It is
saying that it is whatever value is identified by the interpretation
of the lexical form "10" within the context of the datatype
xsd:integer.

That may seem like a very slight distinction, but it is
a very significant one.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Tuesday, 16 April 2002 13:06:40 UTC