From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/08/01
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: datatypes and RDF Schema Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 11:06:16 -0500 [... ...] > >> >3/ Use special URIs to refer to these value spaces and incorporate their > > > > meaning into the meaning of RDF Schema. > >> > >> How does this differ from the proposal that Patrick Stickler has been > >> outlining on rdf-logic? > > > >Patrick wants, I think, int:20 to be the way you get the integer 20. This > >proposal does not use qualified literals at all. > > If I follow Patrick, neither does he. He wants to eliminate literals > altogether and replace them with typed Qnames. Which I view as exactly the same as typed literals. :-) I don't care too much whether typed literals are lexicalized as <age>int:20</age> or <age type=int>20</age> > >Instead it uses something > >like xsd:integer to get from the vague notion of 20 to the precise notion > >of the integer 20. > > Yawn. Frankly, I personally don't have an axe to grind here. What I > do care about is that some fast, simple, piece of machinery can > determine what the 'type' of any literal is supposed to be > sufficiently tightly that I can assign it a unique value in any > interpretation. It has to be fast and simple enough to be thought of > as part of the lexical/parsing machinery, not part of the general > inference process. The point of discussion is, I think, how much work it is to determine that a mention of 20 has ``type'' xsd:integer. I'm arguing that there can be benefits to having a heavy-weight (i.e., semantic), but special-purpose mechanism. I think that you are arguing that to make sense, the special-purpose mechanism has to be light-weight (i.e., syntactic). > Pat peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST