- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:33:04 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 06:09 PM 1/18/02 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>Hmm. The trouble is that plain "value" could mean anything at all. I want
>to allow the MT to conceptually distinguish values of literals from
>semantic values in general, ie resources. (They might turn out to be the
>same; but they might not also and I'd like to stay agnostic.)
Yes..
>How about calling them "datatype values" ? That avoids the use of
>"literal" as an adjective and also makes an obvious connection with
>datatyping. It also follows the DAML usage, which distinguishes 'object'
>classes from 'datatype' classes, which are classes of datatype values.
>
>Anyone got strong views on this? Speak now! Unless there are strong
>objections I will make this change.
I have no objections with these terms per se, but...
Have we got a glossary somewhere to record all this... I'm becoming a
little worried that there might not be convergence terminology. I've been
talking/thinking in terms of datatype lexical space vs value
space; Sergey's datatyping document sets up these, and I guess I'd like to
see any new/refined terminology related to those definitions.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:09 UTC