- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 20:27:22 +0300
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-04-18 1:02, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> 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. > > Patrick, you want to ALTER the MT, clearly. I actually don't think so. I just consider it acceptable to interpret the present MT as all three of the datatyping idioms identifying a datatype value, even if the inline idiom does not provide explicit denotation for that value in the graph. What the users of RDF Datatyping need, IMO, is the ability to express and communicate datatype values. If they can't do that, then something is broken. I don't think the MT needs to be changed. I actually think we are in very violent agreement, and are just bandying over words and how best to explain what the MT says to folks who will not or cannot read the MT. It is your interpretation of the inline idiom as only constraining literals to the lexical space and not actually identifying a datatype value that I consider not "going all the way". > The trouble with your > position, however, is that the place you want to get to, that last > 5%, is a place we have already surveyed, and we found problems with > it. We found problems with trying to have all three idioms denote the datatype value. But by agreeing that the inline idiom does not in fact denote the value, even if it does unambiguously identify the value, works just fine. > Some of our customers definitely do not want to be located there. > They WANT to be able to be sloppy about datatype values, mix talk of > strings with talk of integers, etc., and still they want to invoke > lexical form checking using datatypes. I understood the concerns/desires differently. I heard that they wanted to be able to use the inline idiom and leave the interpretation entirely to the application, or at most, indicate which datatypes should apply to the interpretation of which literal values. But perhaps you're right, and I've misunderstood... >> 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? >> > > I don't see how this will help, or even what it really means. Forget the pairings. They are only a conceptual convenience that captures what I consider to be the key mechanism of RDF datatyping. What I ultimately want to see from the MT (and thought it provided) is that each and every one of the datatyping idioms (when complete) define/identify/provide a specific datatype value. >... The various idioms > provide all the precision (or lack of it) that anyone seems to need, I consider all of the idioms to be equally precise, though some are more explicit than others. > If you want to be sloppy, you can be; The only way to be sloppy, IMO, is to use an implicit idiom without any rdfd:datatype assertion, i.e. for their to be no datatype associated with the literal to tell the application what the intended interpretation is. If you specify the datatype, it is fully precise. Not having a bnode to denote the value is not, IMO, being sloppy. 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 14:25:44 UTC