- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 16:45:22 +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: >> Jenny age "10" . >> age rdfd:range xsd:integer . > > ... 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. No! If Jenny's age (not ex:age) were the string "10" then there is no need to make the rdfd:range/datatype assertion at all! There is no need to constrain the literal to the lexical space of xsd:integer if it is only going to be interpreted as a literal string! The *only* reason for even mentioning xsd:integer is to achieve, at *some* level of interpretation, the value *ten*. As far as I am concerned, the above two statements say that Jenny's age (not ex:age) is ten, and any other intepretation is just plain crazy, and if the MT does not capture in some way that the value ten is communicated by the combination of the above two statements, then it is broken, or incomplete and fails to meet the needs of RDF Datatyping and the needs of reliable, meaningful interchange of datatyped knowledge on the SW. And since someone is surely going to misunderstand (as always) what I said above, I did *not* say that the literal "10" denotes the value ten or that the explicit value of ex:age is ten. If that doesn't work in the MT in any way, then toss the inline idiom as a datatyping idiom and be done with it. 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 14:25:06 UTC