- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:38:35 +0200
- To: ext Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-24 17:07, "ext Martyn Horner" <martyn.horner@profium.com> wrote:
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
>>
>> I've not seen any comments to my earlier proposal
>>
>> '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
>>
> ....
>> Eh?
>>
>> Patrick
>
> Patrick,
>
> I know Pat's already replied to this but I must just point out that this
> proposal must rule itself out on lexical grounds alone (regardless of
> its `value'). You've used `value' three times, once in the fundamental
> sense of a `value space' and then casually in a term for the other side.
> I also note you use `data' three times but I can only object to that on
> aesthetic grounds.
Actually, I only use it once (I don't consider the front part of
"datatype" to equate to "data"), but that's neither here nor there.
> I'd humbly suggest we restrict the use of `value' to `value space' items
> and use `lexical' only for syntactic items and use `data' as a free
> radical for both. That jumbles up your table rather messily, I'm afraid.
How about just
'literal' the RDF/XML string representing an rdfs:Literal
corresponding to a member of lexical space of
"some" datatype (context clarifies which we mean)
'value' member of value space of "some" datatype
But as Dan suggested, we should probably all just shut up and
let Pat define the terms he feels are optimal.
Cheers,
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 Thursday, 24 January 2002 10:37:46 UTC