- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 12 Sep 2002 17:18:37 +0300
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "\"Patrick Stickler\" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
I'm happy to chat about it, if Jeremy is interested. [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 50) 483 9453, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; ""Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: 11 September, 2002 20:05 Subject: RE: Datatyping - abstract syntax - test case > At 15:04 11/09/2002 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > >[[Discussion on values or datatype-lexical pairs in abstract syntax]] > > > >We differ in opinion on this. > >I don't believe it is vital one way of the other. > >Can I ask the chair to table telecon time on this topic. > > Sure, but you and Patrick might like to get on the phone and sort out > precisely where you have an issue. > > BTW, I note that your proposal would mean that the abstract syntax would > have an alphabet that included the reals, i.e. is not countable. Such > things sometimes matter to mathematicians, no doubt because their proofs > rely on countability. I trust we are all right on that score? > > Shooting in the dark > Brian > > > >I think the test case would suffice as input. > > > > > >Jeremy >
Received on Thursday, 12 September 2002 10:20:11 UTC