- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 18:00:08 +0200
- To: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: <www-archive@w3.org>
To clarify, I will intend to write up a section on PD comparable to section 4 of Sergey's document, as well as my changes to section 3 which presume an S-level of resolution, and will then send that to you for review and the infusion of the math. How does that sound? Patrick On 2002-01-11 16:21, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > Hi Patrick, > > note I've moved off-list, but copying to www-archive. > This allows the conversion to be public domain but not in-your-face for > the > rest of the group. > > Assuming the telecon OKs the plan we've just agreed, I suggest we > propose > that we do our work off-list in this way. This should help reduce RDF > Core > bandwidth utilisation. > > I like your pictures, I think they are really helpful. > > I think we should decide which horse to back and forget the others for > now. > > My reckoning is that S is leading the race, and PL is in the race, and > both > are different from the sort of solutions we have been in favour of. > > For me, the race will be won on rdf-interest (not rdf-core), hence the > familiarity of the PD proposal is IMO the key. > > So I suggest restricting our write-up to PD, and forgetting, for now, U > and > P++. > > Any thoughts? > > > On the maths ... > > Your suggested framework ... > > [[[[[ > > 1. Take up to section 4.1 as a starting point (rework section 3 and > remove sections 4.2 onwards, including section 5). > > 2. Add math in or following section 4.1 that states that for any pairing > > (lexical_form, data_type_URIref) > > there is one and only one mapping > > (lexical_form, data_value) > > between the lexical space and value space of that data type. > > Surely the math for this is straightforward (I wish I could provide it). > > 3. Add final sections detailing the idioms P and D, how they define such > pairings of lexical form and data type. > > ]]]]]]] > > I started thinking about this and got a bit of nervous. > > So far, we have decided not to have a processing model for RDF: step 3 > above > looks like creeping towards one, and overall this looks like an extra > layer > in our analysis. > > I am beginning to see the attraction of trying to do it all in the model > theory, which, as far as I understand, Pat made a stab at in: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0011.html > > "Datatypes and MT" > > I am beginning to feel that I need to bite the bullet and build on top > of > Pat's work and actually do some model theory. > > Then your diagrams and some text would be the informal part, and we > simply > wouldn't have the intermediate level math that would actually be useful > to > an implementor! > > My understanding is the MT route that we have taken overall is a > decision to > leave implementation to implementators and to prioritise being clear > over > being at the right level for implementators. > > I am flying out to the WebOnt F2F this weekend, I will try and have a > stab > at PD model theory on the plane. ("stab" is perhaps an unfortunate turn > of > phrase). > > Jeremy > > > > -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 10:59:26 UTC