- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 21:23:06 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>At 11:41 AM 2/20/02 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: >>>Oh dear, it's looking as if I seriously dropped the ball on this... >>> >>>With my CC/PP hat on I don't see the following "long-range" usage >>>is supported: >>> >>> _:SomeClientComponent client-property:dpi "100" . >>> >>> : >>> >>> client-property:dpi rdfs:range datatype:number . >>> >>>i.e. does not define support for idiom B in the datatyping >>>desiderata document: >>> >>> >>>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0133/00-gk.htm >>> >>>What also now seriously bothers me is that I can't see how the >>>full proposal [1] supports this either. I had earlier convinced >>>myself that this was all OK, but now I can't see it. Aaargh! >> >>No, it definitely does not support it, in fact in its current form >>it effectively deprecates it, since literals always denote >>themselves, and there is no way to change the meaning of an in-line >>literal. But I thought that was what we had all decided to do?? The >>proposals have been saying this loud and clear in paragraph 1 from >>the beginning, and people were sending me only positive comments, >>so.... > >Yeah... I don't know how I missed it... I guess I've been looking >at so many proposals over the past couple of weeks I'm just not >seeing the wood for the trees. > >>To fix this, at the very least, you would have to use rdfs:drange >>instead of rdfs:range. Right now that would not work either, but I >>can tweak the semantics to make it work. But at a cost: we have to >>allow nonmonotonic datatyping, in the sense that adding an >>rdfs:drange assertion *alters* the interpretation of the in-line >>idiom. There's no way around that, seems to me. But maybe we can >>live with this much nonmonotonicity when considering datatypes. >> >>Can I ask y'all for some clarification. Do people want to support >>BOTH in-line and bnode forms at the same time? That is, should the >>following mean the same thing and be affected in the same way by a >>drange assertion on ex:age ??: >>(1) >>person:Jenny ex:age "10" . >>(2) >>person:Jenny ex:age _:x . >>_:x rdfs:dlex "10" . > >I think both have their place: (1) is how CC/PP currently works, >but (2) provides a more flexible way of modelling going forwards. > >>As things are at present, (1) means that Jenny's age is a character >>string, no matter what else you say, whereas (2) says her age is >>something that can be described by a character string, so can be >>modified by other datatyping. We can change this, as I say, but >>only at a cost. > >I have no problem with that bit ... I just want to be able to say >that not all strings are valid here, only those which can represent >(in this case) Jenny's age. AAARGH!!! I wish you would say what it is you DO want. People keep contradicting themselves, no wonder we cant get to a resolution of this damnable issue. I thought that the whole point of the B idiom was that it DID allow datatyping to alter the denotation of the literal. If CC/PP doesn't need that, we don't need to allow the inline idiom to be sensitive to datatypes. Please will you say EXACTLY what you want to be able to do. Then I promise I will hit your target. But for Gods sake keep the target still for a while. > (It doesn't really matter to CC/PP what the "10" formally denotes, >but I don't want to avoid the possible conclusion that person:Jenny >ex:age "Humpty Dumpty" is equally meaningful.) > >Also, I don't think they have to be available for the same property, >though they may be needed for different properties in the same >graph; e.g. > > person:Jenny ex:age "10" . > person:Jenny ex:weight _:x . > _:x xsd:number "10" . > >(Did you mean to use rdfs:dlex in your example above?) Yes, the point being that in both cases the datatyping information can come from 'outside', ie by dranging ex:age. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 22:23:10 UTC