From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 10/09/01
From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: Re: new model theory for DAML+OIL Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:37:59 -0500 > > Well, its pretty much required by Tarski, seems to me. We can wriggle > around it by being very persnickety about exactly what counts as > 'really' being syntax, but isn't it the case that somehow, something > has to be able to distinguish the '5' that is an age from the '5' > that is an address, and that whatever it is that that process is > accessing could be regarded as part of the 'syntax' of the literal > for semantic purposes? Seems to me that we could simply adopt this as > a kind of basic semantic-methodological principle to help us decide > what counts as part of the 'logical syntax'. We need some help > keeping all these metadata-ish layers straight in any case. > > Pat I do tend to agree with you on this, and, if there were no other constraints, I would be quite happy with ``true literals''. However, I do think that there is considerable usage of/formalism in RDF and XML Schema that requires a looser view of the meaning of <age>05</age> I am trying to come up with a model theory that can capture this looser view of ``literals'', a.k.a. character data, a.k.a. datatypes. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST