From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 10/08/01
From: Pat Hayes <[email protected]>
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