Re: Denotation of datatype values

On 2002-04-16 20:03, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 16:33 15/04/2002 -0400, Pat Hayes wrote:
> [...]
> 
>> I don't want to be a party-pooper, but I honestly feel that having an MT
>> and sticking to it is one way to get past this kind of half-formalized
>> (and rather confusing) kind of discussion. I do not know what these
>> 'levels' are supposed to be, or how to recognize them, or how to evaluate
>> talk about them, etc. etc. . Why not stick to the syntax and the MT, and
>> just talk about that? Then everything is clear. What an application wants
>> to do with an RDF graph is up to it, not up to us. All we can do is to
>> provide application writers with a gold standard for meanings, and leave
>> other 'layers' to them.
> 
> I agree.

That's a pity, because there are lots of users of RDF who can't
read or understand the MT. So...

There are many different kinds of "customers" who will read the
RDF Datatyping specification, and we need to be sure that it is
clear and approachable -- and ultimately *usable* -- to them all.

The MT, IMO, stops short of the line. It gets 95% there and fails
to actually say how to get to the finish. It fails to capture
the ultimate "why" of the idioms.

If you want the MT to be the only level addressed in the RDF
Datatyping specification, then could we consider giving datatyped
literal pairings a formal definition in the MT. They need no
explicit denotation in the graph, no more so than the datatype
mappings do. They only need definition. Eh?
 
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 13:13:43 UTC