RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: Pat Hayes (
Date: 11/29/01

>Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
>Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 20:57:49 +0200
>>  If the data type does not define a lexical space, then
>>  no mechanism is going to work. Either there's a defined
>>  mapping from lexical form to value or there isn't. It
>>  is therefore enough to identify that pairing of lexical
>>  form (literal) to data type (URI) in order to denote the
>>  value.
>The problem is not that the datatypes don't meet your conditions above, the
>problem occurs when two datatypes share some data values, but disagree on
>how to to the lexical-to-value mapping.  If the typing comes from RDF(S),
>then it may be the case that a literal gets these two datatypes.  Then the
>value for that literal is ambiguous.

Or maybe contradictory. Well, true, but so what? That is exactly what 
one would expect from RDF(S) (or from DAML, for that matter); it is 
always possible to give too little information, and when one does, 
the result is ambiguous; and similarly, it is also possible, 
sometimes, to give too much information, and the result may then be 
contradictory. I don't see this as being a problem.

Pat Hayes
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST