W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2002

Re: TDL Model Theory

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 10:26:09 -0600
Message-Id: <p05101024b8773625660c@[]>
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

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.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 11:25:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:08 UTC