- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 15:54:05 +0300
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-04-18 0:40, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> 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. > > Right. In fact, it would strictly speaking be in contradiction to the > content of the RDF. Jenny's actual age probably is ten, but Jenny's > <ex:age> is *definitely* the string "10" according to this RDF. That > is fixed and unambiguous no matter what the datatyping information > is, and we should be clear about that. And here is where I disagree. At the level of the non-datatyping MT, the meaning of the literal node is the string "10", but the datatyping MT says that "10" is a lexical form of xsd:integer, and that association of "10" with xsd:integer identifies the value ten. That's the whole point of datatyping, to get to datatype values. No, it doesn't change the denotation of the literal node itself, but the value ten is identified by the RDF graph, and it is the value ten that ultimately is useful to an application. The datatyping MT doesn't change the meaning of "10", but it still provides the value ten. The inline idiom is IMO just a short hand for the lexical form idiom which simply doesn't provide for explicit denotation of the datatype value -- but its purpose is still to express the identity of a datatype value. If that is not so, then let's remove the inline idiom from the datatyping specification. 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 Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:24:52 UTC