- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:56:37 -0600
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>Pat Hayes writes: > >.... 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. > >That makes sense, but XMLSchema happens to define only one "lexical >representation" mapping and one "canonical lexical representation" >mapping for its "integer" datatype, and they happen to use base 10. >[1] > >So I think you're heading somewhere a little different than the >simplest practical merging of XMLSchema and DAML+OIL (which I think is >what is being proposed [1]). Yes, true. I withdraw my suggestion. Your lexRep abbreviation will do fine. But I also agree with PFPS that DAML+OIL needs to be consistent with RDF usage, however braindamaged it is. >Would you like to propose something else, like actually defining >datatypes axiomatically? I would LIKE to, but I know better than to actually do so. And since the people with the long knives are those who would have to write the software, I will concede to their judgement. > I personally like that idea, but people say >that writing the axioms and writing the systems to work with them >efficiently are both difficult or maybe impossible. I haven't managed >to prove them wrong yet (and since I haven't really tried, I'm still >optimistic). Well, I'm pessimistic; but I'm glad there are optimists. 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 20:53:53 UTC