- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 15:20:38 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, herman.ter.horst@philips.com
>From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >Subject: Technical tweaks to the MT, for reviewers. >Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2002 11:47:33 -0600 > >> >> 1. There is a problem I mentioned earlier with literals like >> "badnumber"^^xsd:integer . They have to denote something, but they >> shouldn't denote a literal value (because they, er, don't, right?) >> The trouble is that until we go ask the datatype, RDF can't tell the >> difference between one of these and "12345"^^xsd:integer. So in the >> basic RDF MT, we need to say that typed literals denote something but >> we don't yet know even if its a literal value, so it has to be in IR, >> not in LV (as at present). >> >> So what do we do when we find out that it is bad? The current draft >> invents an ad-hoc thingie (a triplet) to be the value in this case, >> but that is not a good solution. Better would be to say that it >> denotes some unknown but arbitrary thing which, whatever it is, is >> not a literal value. This adds a slightly odd technical extension to >> the definition of datatyped interpretation, which will now include a >> new mapping IBL from datatyped literals to things in IR that are >> *not* in LV, which are the 'things' that the literal will denote *if* >> it is badly typed. > >I think that I would prefer the interpretation of bad literals to be >elements of LV that are not in L2V for any datatype. I think that this is >just a stylistic preference, but there may be consequences in >more-expressive languages (such as OWL, but I can't think of any). Perhaps >the easiest way to go would be to require bad literals just not to denote >anything in any datatype value space, and leave whether they are in LV >open. OK, I see what you mean, but not how to do it elegantly. There is no way to refer to the set of things in any L2V value space..... Of course I could introduce one, but then what is the point of having LV ? The difference in entailments is whether we want aaa ppp <any literal, even a bad one> --> aaa ppp _:xxx . _:xxx rdf:type rdfs:Literal . Right now, it does not; this works only for good literals. If we say it does, then is there any way to distinguish good from bad literals? Pat > >[...] > >> >> Pat > >peter -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Friday, 8 November 2002 16:20:18 UTC