- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 12:20:16 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>This topic is beginning to generate long emails which may be >redundant if the cause is a minor confusion. If so maybe we can >save a little effort. > >At 10:52 25/02/2003 -0600, pat hayes wrote: > >>>I think I agree with Patrick on this one. >>> >>>The last call WDs show a URI denoting a datatype but not part of the >>>datatype denoted. >> >>Lets forget about 'part of'. > >I think that's the term that caused the problem, and that Pat just >withdrew it. > >The cause of the problem is that folks (including me) are worried >that Pat is proposing a change to what a datatype is, and since we >are using the XML Schema datatype model, that could be a problem. > >Having read the latest MT doc: > > http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes/RDF_Semantics_Editors.html#dtype_interp > >I don't think that is what is happening, but I'm not sure. I think >the new semantics doc hasn't changed what a datatypes is, but has >introduced the URIREF of the datatype into the *formal machinery* >describing the semantics of the datatype, Right, nice way to put it. >which is probably ok. > >Lets try a test case. From > > http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#datatype > >[[ >[Definition:] In this specification, a datatype is a 3-tuple, >consisting of a) a set of distinct values, called its ·value space·, >b) a set of lexical representations, called its ·lexical space·, and >c) a set of ·facet·s that characterize properties of the ·value >space·, individual values or lexical items. >]] > >So xsd:decimal denotes a 3-tuple, and the URIREF of the datatype is >not a component of the 3-tuple, nor is it 'part-of' any component of >the 3-tuple. > >Pat, does the semantics document say anything that conflicts with >this statement? No, that is fine. (Well, the XML text omits the L2V mapping, but that's their problem...) I'm happy to say that a datatype IS whatever it always has been, but I also want to say that it HAS a name (provided by its external maker) and that we are obliged to treat that name as denoting that triple-thingie. I really don't see this as a change to anything other than the way that the MT expresses itself; but Peter was right to point out that there was a lacuna in the LC version, since it didn't make this 'use the given name properly' specification clear. We have consistently obeyed this convention ourselves, of course, from day one: there's never been any doubt that the URIref 'xsd:integer' really does refer to the datatype xsd:integer, right? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 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, 26 February 2003 13:20:21 UTC