- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 01:38:51 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > > >"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > >> > >> I am concerned that this model theory locks RDF into a particular > >> way of interpreting literals, namely that the interpretation of a literal > >> can be completely determined from its label, using a fixed mapping to > >> literal values. > > > >I believe this is by design. It's an important requirement on > >RDF syntax that it be "context free"... i.e. that this > >level of meaning is syntactically evident. > > Context free, right, but that 'syntactically evident' may depend on > more than a simple label, as far as the model theory is concerned. I don't think so... this is the whole point of the global XL mapping, no? i.e. once you've got the lexical form of a literal, you can immediately conclude what it denotes. > The MT is (deliberately) agnostic about the exact nature of lexical > items in any particular lexicalization. Then what am I to make of this? "We assume a global set LV of literal values and a fixed mapping XL from the set of literals to LV." -- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-rdf-mt-20010925/#urisandlit -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 02:38:53 UTC