- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 12:25:03 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-22 6:00, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > >> As promised, brief writeup at >> >> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html >> >> Pat > >Looks good. ??? Then why did you vote for 'string' at the telecon? In the above, the answer is 'number'. >And the shared bNode treatment outlined in 3.1 looks like >a suitable alternative to my proposed use of rdfs:Literal >to exclude the bNode idioms. > >We may want to change the language in the final specification >to avoid saying things like "aserts that Jenny's age is 35" >since that depends on specific knowledge about the datatype, >but rather say "asserts that Jenny's age is the value >given by the extra-RDF datatyping mapping DDD("35") where >the rdfs:Datatype ddd denotes the extra-RDF datatype >DDD. Otherwise, folks who were expecting the MT to actually >provide the complete interpretation to actual value may get >confused to think it actually does, when it in fact doesn't >and can't. > >Your treatment of the inline idiom as "virtualy" equivalent >to the value triple, to avoid range conflicts, I guess works, >though it seems less clean or basic than just treating >rdfs:Datatype's as unions which doesn't force any such special >treatment of rdfs:range in terms of datatyping or force >datatyping semantics on folks using rdfs:range for non-datatype >ranges. But I can live with it, I guess, if I have to. > >Though, we could still benefit from the union approach, as it >allows us to leave out rdfs:dlex entirely and avoid a datatyping >clashable local idiom. If datatype is implicit, use the inline >idiom. If it is explicit, use the datatype idiom. And that is >that. > >The union approach also makes the last three paragraphs >of section 4 (in pink) unnecessary -- and thus the whole business >about the meaning of rdfs:range is fully consistent across RDF >classes (datatype or otherwise), doesn't force any datatyping >semantics onto non-datatype classes used with rdfs:range, and thus is >simpler and clearer for users while providing an (extra-RDF) >datatyping interpretation that is equally clear and consistent >for applications. Patrick, as Ive said to you, as far as I can tell, there is no 'union approach' It doesn't seem to make mathematical sense. I am willing to be corrected if you can show me how it would work; but until someone does, I propose to ignore it. 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 Friday, 22 February 2002 13:25:06 UTC