- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 16:03:45 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <www-archive@w3.org>
At 01:03 PM 1/30/02 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >
> > Though I'd very much like your comments to my question in
> > my MT commments to Pat, that insofar as the actual denoted
> > values are concerned, I wonder if either TDL or S can
> > ensure entailment, since RDF is stuck with non-canonical
> > lexical forms. C.f. the last comment in
> >
>
>My ideal outcome for the datatyping discussion is something like we agree on
>TDL or S-P (perhaps with an S-A idiom but S-P semantics) and then Pat works
>his model theoretic magic so that the literal strings somehow vanish from
>the model theory.
>
>I, never having got passed the apprentice stage, can't weave such wonders.
Jeremy,
Did my thoughts on an MT for TDL make any sense to you?
Essentially, I was treating literals like blank nodes, but with some extra
conditions.
Originally, I started using a mapping from literal nodes to datatype map
members, a bit like Pat's "A" for blank nodes, then felt I could could say
the same thing without it.
I've sent of copy of that bit of my note to the archive, with some links to
Jeremy's related notes, available at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/0147.html
#g
--
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 11:07:17 UTC