- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2002 17:16:05 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-20 19:41, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > > >> 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" . > >Yes. > >> 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. > >It depends on how much of the datatyping interpretation is >intended to be captured in the graph. > >If we agree that a literal denotes a literal always, and at >some level above the graph, we may determine based on the >combination of a literal and a datatype that the literal is >string equal with a lexical form that denotes a value, great. > >But we don't then have to say that the literal node *denotes* >the value. It still denotes the literal. > >Datatyping interpretation can happen above the graph. The >knowledgeg necessary to make those interpretations consistently >and unambiguously is captured in the graph. And in the graph, >a literal always denotes a literal. > >Where is the problem? The problem for me is that none of this makes the any sense at all. I have no idea what you are talking about. 1. If a literal always denotes itself, then datatyping information in the graph (in particular, about ranges expressed using rdfs:drange for example) cannot influence the meaning or truthvalues of any 'in-line' use. That is how my first 'simplified' proposal worked, but I gather you did not like that. (To emphasize: if "15" denotes "15", then Jenny ex:age "15" . says that Jenny's ex:age is "15". It does not, cannot, and never will say that Jenny's ex:age is 15, no matter what you do above, inside or underneath the graph. End of story; nothing more to be said; nothing can change it (short of re-writing the entire RDF MT from the ground up.). ) 2. I do not know what you mean by a 'level above' the graph, and in any case that is irrelevant, whatever it means, since we are here talking about the graph. 3. I do not know what you mean by the distinction between a string and a lexical form. Seems to me that lexical forms *are* strings. (They sure look like strings on the page.) 4. What kind of interpretation happens 'above' the graph? And how can it make any difference to what the graph means? 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 Thursday, 21 February 2002 18:16:07 UTC