RE: Syntax-level typing (was Re: A data typing proposal)

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 02:59, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > > And it requires no changes to RDF whatsoever. Just use a 
> > URI to denote
> > > the typed literal which denotes the value in question. Done.
> > 
> > ... It's critical that these expressions
> > act like literals in the model theory. 
> 
> EH? They're URI denoted resources. Not literals.

Your 7Aug message was in reply to a proposal in
which they *are* literals; you suggested
that this proposal was the same as your val:
proposal, and I was pointing out a difference.

Yes, in your val: proposal they're URI denoted resources.
But not in the syntax-level typing proposal.
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0012.html

> In fact, what is being proposed is a fourth atomic graph 
> component, in addition to URIrefs, bnodes, and literals -- which 
> is a TDL!!! a Typed Data Literal -- and which unambiguously 
> denotes a datatype value.
> 
> Kriminy!
> 
> You simply can't treat literals as global constants. They
> are contextual. 

I accept that as your opinion.
I disagree.

In my opinion, RDF literals have always had the
property that if they look the same, they denote
the same thing, and if they look different
(modulo a few things like A vs A),
they denote different things.

In my opinion, RDF has always had string literals and
XML infoitem literals.

In my opinion, what is bein proposes is that
RDF have integer literals, along with string
literals and XML infoitem literals.

> How may times do we have to go round this
> issue before we get past it?!

It might help if you would make an effort to distinguish
matters of fact and matters of record from matters
of opinion.


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Thursday, 15 August 2002 15:23:29 UTC