- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:47:24 -0600
- To: sandro@w3.org, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, ht@w3.org
Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>: > > 3. Using the property rdf:value to link from a point in the value > > space (eg 10) to a point in the lexical space (eg "10") seems > > completely backwards. That's saying: > > > > the number 10 has a value which is the string "10" > > Well, since 'value' has no formal meaning, we could interpret it in this context as meaning ' ... whose value can be determined by interpreting the string .... in the usual way'. > > when the correct form (IMHO) is > > > > the number 10 has a lexical representation which is the > > string "10" > > > > I know rdf:value is given in RDF M&S, but that doesn't make it > > right. We need a property lexicalRepresentation (and probably > > canonicalLexicalRepresentation) to be clear here. [...] "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>: >Agreed. I also think that this is the wrong way around. However rdf:value >is used for precisely this relationship in RDF M&S. One other reason for >using rdf:value is that it is shorter than rdf:lexicalRepresentation. Right. God forbid that everyone should have to write 'rdf:canonicalLexicalRepresentation=' every time they use a numeral. If a generic name for the inverse of 'value' is needed, let's call it 'eulav' (pronounced you-lav). But since the same number might be written in binary, decimal, hexadecimal or octal; all of them, for various purposes, with a claim to be the canonical representation, why not use a terminology which indicates the encoding, say for example: rdf:decnum rdf:binnum rdf:octnum and so on? Notice that 'num' here means numeral, not number. 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 Friday, 16 February 2001 11:44:35 UTC