- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2002 15:14:17 -0500
- To: ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson)
- Cc: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>As Pat and I have gone through, there are two separate issues here: > >1) Value spaces -- they're sets alright, as you would hope and expect, >and their members are simple things _in the world_ such as numbers, >strings, booleans, URIs. > >2) The definition of certain aspects of schema-validity which appear >to appeal to values should actually be understood as appealing to >pairs of values and the type they are a member of. Ah, thanks for that clarification. I had not understood that point until this message. I will re-write the relevant section of the RDF semantics document before final call. >Thus the REC says >that (double)3 does not compare equal to (float)3, and >(string)my:aname does not compare equal to (anyURI)my:aname. > >(2) is _only_ relevant to W3C XML Schema internal processes, Which is up to the XMLS folk to define for themselves. But please be extra careful when talking about identity. If y'all say something that sounds like these processes are acting on the values themselves, then what you are saying sounds to be logically impossible. People tend to read logically impossible claims as meaning some other, logically possible, claim. In this case, for example, I read our entire correspondence up to this message as meaning that value spaces were not sets, or were sets of pairs, since those were the only ways it seemed to make sense. Thanks for your patience, Henry. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Wednesday, 13 November 2002 15:13:54 UTC