RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: ext jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
>>  [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
>>  Sent: 05 October, 2001 14:36
>>  To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
>>  Cc: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere); www-rdf-logic@w3.org
>>  Subject: RE: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)
>>
>>
>>
>>  [...]
>>  > I may simply have not been following the point properly. Coming from
>>  > logic, I have an acute sense of the difference between information
>>  > which is conveyed as part of the very syntax of a language, and that
>>  > conveyed by making assertions in the language. This seems
>>  like a very
>>  > sharp and important distinction to me. My understanding of the
>>  > proposal was that the syntactic encoding of, say, integers implicit
>>  > in the notion of literal was to be abandoned and replaced by an
>>  > assertional encoding in RDF triples. That may be a good idea, but it
>>  > does potentially throw away a lot of valuable properties implicit in
>>  > the syntactic typing of literals. However, if this proposal
>>  is better
>>  > thought of as one to introduce a more uniform notion of syntactic
>>  > typing for URIs in general, then I'm all for it. Sorry if my
>>  > ignorance is a barrier to communication.
>>
>>  that is indeed the crucial point!
>>  let me refer to our "tangent point" testcase
>>    http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint.n3
>>    http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-facts.n3
>>  which is making use of "an assertional encoding in RDF triples"
>>  (think about log:implies as an entailment between graphs)
>>  I think this example should make use of some (primitive)
>>  datatypes, but only to a certain extent, because when
>>  the granularity is too big, I don't see straightforward
>>  inferincing capability to have answers to such questions as
>>    http://www.agfa.com/w3c/euler/tpoint-query.n3
>>  especially while having a given point within the circle
>>  (2 complex solutions) which is later maybe "ruled" out by
>>  the inference engine (using further rules of course).
>
>
>It must be due to my ignorance of formal logic, but I just
>don't see where there is any "syntactic encoding of integers
>implicit in the notion of literal" which is specific to
>a data type 'integer', or any other specific data type.
>
>A string is a string is a string

True, but so what? We were talking about literals, not about strings. 
(Or are you assuming that literals *are* strings? But doesn't that 
beg the question?)

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, 5 October 2001 17:57:45 UTC