- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 19 Apr 2002 10:36:34 +0300
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-04-19 0:17, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> Not having a bnode to denote the value is not, IMO, being sloppy. > > What I meant is that if you (the user) are interested in lexical > checking but want to be deliberately underspecified concerning > datatype values, you have that option. I consider this to be nonsensical. There is no difference in datatyping precision between any of the idioms. They all identify datatype values. I think where we disagree is whether something that does not have explicit denotation in the graph can be provided for by the MT. I see no reason why not. But then, I'm not a mathematician. I see the MT as telling me unambiguously, for every inline idiom with an associated datatype, the specific datatype value (or how to obtain it by an application that groks the datatype). That is what matters to me. Getting to the datatype value. In some applications, having explicit denotation for the datatype value in the graph is useful or even necessary, and such needs will direct the selection of other idioms than the inline idiom, or transformation from the inline idiom to another idiom. But in all cases, a single specific datatype value is identified. 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 Friday, 19 April 2002 03:40:24 UTC