Re: literal value terminology (was: Re: Review of MT)

On 2002-01-19 4:21, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:


> You know, I still would not use "datatype value". We kind of agreed to
> use the terms "value spaces" and "lexical spaces" in datatyping such
> that lexical spaces are subsets of what is currently called set of
> "literal values". It seems more natural to baptize the elements of the
> value spaces of datatypes as "datatype values"...
> 
> My counterproposal is just
> 
> I(literal token) = literal value
> 
> leaving datatypes out of the picture for now.
> 
> Sergey

OK, I think I'm following you better now. You are in essence
saying that the current MT does *not* refer to members of
value spaces (as was Pat's assertion) but rather refers to
members of the lexical spaces.

Whether that fits into the MT as specified now or not, perhaps
we can iron out the terminology first, and then figure out
if the semantics of the terminology fit the semantics of the
MT?

I propose

   'literal'        the RDF/XML string representing an rdfs:Literal
   'lexical value'  member of lexical space of "some" datatype
   'data value'     member of value space of "some" datatype

and the datatyping proposals focus on clarifying *which*
datatype a given lexical value or data value belong to.

As to which of the above 'literal value' in the present MT
corresponds to, I can't say. Seems to me that it equates
to data value. Pat?

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 Saturday, 19 January 2002 05:17:43 UTC