- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:26:09 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > Idiom P in this MT requires the range of a >> property to be a literal-value pair. But that is wrong, for P. If I >> want to say that the range of a property is xsd:integer, I mean to >> say that the range is whatever xsd says integers are, ie the value, >> not a literal-value pair. One hundred and twenty-three is an integer; >> the pair <'123',123> is not an integer (according to XSD). > >Short version: > >P and S-B have rdfs:range as referring to the value space. >S-A has rdfs:range as referring to the lexical space. >My proposal explores the third possibility of having rdfs:range as referring >to the map. > >I don't think there are any a priori reasons that rule that out. It is our >model theory and we are free to choose what parts of the world get modelled >where. Oh sure, its your model theory, and there is no reason to rule it out a priori. I guess maybe I was reading too much into the section heading that referred to P, assuming that this meant to say that this was an accurate rendering of the old P idiom. However, I still think that most people who write something like foo rdfs:range xsd:integer . would intend to be saying that the range of foo was integers as defined by xsd. 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, 25 January 2002 11:25:58 UTC