Re: Input sought on datatyping tradeoff

   [Brian McBride]
   You reject the constraints on the answers put in the question, which is 
   fair enough and we should discuss your reasons for that.  What I'm looking 
   for though is a judgment about which of the two 'features' is more 
   important to have.  If it later turns out we can have both, then fine, but 
   if we had to choose between A being yes and D being yes, which do we go for?

   I'm currently interpreting your answer as favouring what we call the 
   'untidy' position.

   In this position two literal nodes in an RDF graph with the same label, 
   e.g. "10" need not denote denote the same thing in the domain.

   You also suggest that this position can be reconciled with test case A1 
   being answered YES.

   I must ask you, if it were not possible that the answer to A1 could be YES, 
   would you still hold the same opinion.  I've tried to demonstrate a problem 
   with your current position in:

Okay, I see the problem.  rdf:_1 is an example of a property for which
we can conclude nothing at all about how a literal occurring as its
value is to be interpreted.  Hence I must withdraw my Yes for A1.

   >Yes, because no matter how the argument to <ageInYears> is parsed, the
   >same input string must yield the same literal.

   We appear to have different assumptions about what is going on here.  I 
   don't know enough to grok what your viewpoint is so I'll express this as 
   some observations that jar with me.

   "Parsed"?  We are talking about model theory here.  There is no parsing.

I just meant how strings of characters are translated into
model-theoretic entities.

   >   (Escape clause: If
   ><ageInYears> is allowed to consider its first argument,

   "argument"?  There are no arguments.  <ageInYears> is a 
   property.  "consider" is not something it does?  <ageInYears> is part of an 
   expression in a language.

My phrasing was sloppy.  I was assuming that in a triple 
<a> <b> <literal>, the denotation of <literal> depended on <b> but not
<a>.  I now see that that is wrong.

                                             -- Drew

Received on Tuesday, 16 July 2002 11:07:43 UTC