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

Re: Datatyping literals: question and test cases

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 5 Nov 2002 19:12:13 -0600
Message-Id: <p05111b14b9ee1c1f4986@[]>
To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> writes:
>>  >No, but it's a matter of authority. If the "owner" of the datatype
>>  >(the agency that has the authority to define it) says there is no
>>  >ordering for the members of its value space, then it doesn't have
>>  >an ordering.
>>  I can't make sense of this. It sounds to me like saying that because
>>  Im not interested in the colors of the bindings of my books, that
>>  therefore they have no colors. Look, I can take one of these unordered
>>  value spaces and *I* can define an ordering on it. Of course it *has*
>>  an ordering. In fact, if its finite with cardinality N, it has
>>  N-factorial orderings. Authority is fine, but its unwise to claim
>>  authority over Platonic abstractions.
>Further to my other postings, _all_ it means in practice for W3C XML
>Schema to say that e.g. the anyURI simple type is unordered is that
>you can't use the max/min facets to constrain subtypes thereof.

Ah, thanks. It would be nice to make that very, very clear in the 
spec somewhere,  ("by 'unordered' we mean ....." )

While writing the RDF MT, I found that it was necessary to put in all 
kinds of warnings against misunderstandings that arose because people 
had read into my words things I hadn't even thought of.

Thanks for all the feedback.


>Applications are free to define operations which depend on an ordering
>which they also define.
>As you say, strings are a good example -- most people agree they're
>ordered, few can agree on what the order actually _is_.
>   Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
>           W3C Fellow 1999--2002, part-time member of W3C Team
>      2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
>	    Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk
>		     URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
>  [mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is 
>forged spam]

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
s.pam@ai.uwf.edu   for spam
Received on Tuesday, 5 November 2002 20:11:58 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC