- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 5 Oct 2001 16:57:42 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
> > -----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