- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 10:50:54 -0600
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> >To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com> >Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> >Sent: 30 October, 2002 19:50 >Subject: RE: rdfs:StringLiteral > > >> >> >thanks Patrick I misspoke. >> > >> >Should all datatypes be subclass of rdfs:Literal; or maybe only >>the datatype >> >xsd:string should be a subclass of rdfs:Literal >> >> My understanding is that rdfs:Literal is the class of all possible >> literal values. > >"literal values" sounds like an oxymoron to me. We have either >lexical forms or values, I meant the values. All of them, that is: integers and strings and uris and whatever. Anything that can be mapped into a value space from a literal. Anything that a literal can denote. >and if the L2V mapping happens to map >a lexical form to a value that is string equal to the lexical >form,, fine, but one can still argue that both exist insofar >as the semantics are concerned. Well, they might well exist, but the question is, which of them are in the class? It isn't very useful to have a class of *syntactic* things, unless we also have some way to refer to those syntactic things. >Do you mean "lexical forms"? NO!! That's why I said literal VALUES. >hen while we can say that >rdfs:Literal is the class of all possible lexical forms, I don't >see how that fits into RDFS Class semantics, since that is a >syntactic based membership and not a semantic one. Yes, exactly. My message was to the effect that rdf:Literal is NOT a class of lexical forms. > >I personally consider rdfs:Literal to be a bug. Its membership is >defined by M&S as a set of structural components of the graph, not >the denotation of members of a class. That isn't the way I read the M&S, and that interpretation has never been in any version of the MT. I agree however that the M&S is highly unclear on this point, as on many others, and in particular is rife with use/mention confusions in any case. SO to hell with trying to deconstruct the M&S: what do WE want rdf:Literal to mean? 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 Thursday, 31 October 2002 11:51:04 UTC