- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 15:18:57 -0600
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
>From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com >Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot >Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:57:49 +0200 > >[...] >> >> If the data type does not define a lexical space, then >> no mechanism is going to work. Either there's a defined >> mapping from lexical form to value or there isn't. It >> is therefore enough to identify that pairing of lexical >> form (literal) to data type (URI) in order to denote the >> value. > >The problem is not that the datatypes don't meet your conditions above, the >problem occurs when two datatypes share some data values, but disagree on >how to to the lexical-to-value mapping. If the typing comes from RDF(S), >then it may be the case that a literal gets these two datatypes. Then the >value for that literal is ambiguous. Or maybe contradictory. Well, true, but so what? That is exactly what one would expect from RDF(S) (or from DAML, for that matter); it is always possible to give too little information, and when one does, the result is ambiguous; and similarly, it is also possible, sometimes, to give too much information, and the result may then be contradictory. I don't see this as being a problem. Pat Hayes -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 29 November 2001 16:18:06 UTC