Re: Occam-slashed datatypes

On 2002-02-22 11:46, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:

> Pat,
> 
> I must agree with PatrickS that your newest draft has very little to do
> with the S proposal - so little that I wonder where all our convergence
> effort is gone ;(
> 
> Somehow we are back to untidy literals with context-dependent
> interpretation after several rounds of violent agreement on the opposite.
> I hope there is just some kind of misunderstanding.

This confused me too, since this is not what the "Dummies" proposal
suggested, which was that literals are tidy, and always denote
themselves in the MT interpretation.

The contextualization is a matter of the datatyping -- whereby an
application which knows about a given datatype treats a literal
as a lexical form of that datatype and applies the single mapping
to a value.

The MT at least is able to tell us, in the presence of rdfs:Datatype
typing, that a given literal should be treated as a lexical form
of some datatype, even if it can't tell us which value exactly
it maps to for that datatype.

> I guess the bummer happened on the way to making S-B an "endorsed"
> datatyping idiom.

Or perhaps just on the way between my "Dummies" post and Pat's
attempt to capture it in terms of the previous convergence MT.

> .. rollback to the most recent proposal
> that assumed tidy literals.

Or simply rework the MT for the "Dummies" convergence proposal
in terms of tidy literals, literals denote literals, and rdfs:Datatypes
as unions...

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, 22 February 2002 05:16:13 UTC