From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 10/10/01
Peter, after my mini-epiphany during the telecon yesterday, I had an
even better one :-). I think that there is a very tiny, if
unconventional, change to the RDF MT which will allow it to
accommodate smoothly to your (or anyone else's) proposed treatment of
literals: simply say (with some explanatory prose :-) that the XL
mapping is a fixed mapping from literal TOKENS to literal values.
That is, it allows one occurrence of <whatever>05</whatever> to
denote an integer and another one to denote a string, just as long as
they each denote the same thing in every interpretation. This allows
both the case where every literal is simply a string which denotes
itself, and it also allows the extreme other case where an elaborate
external datatyping process assigns special values in all sorts of
ways. However, it does insist that each literal label token has a
fixed interpretation; it doesn't tolerate ambiguity of any
*particular* literal label. I don't want to allow that kind of
ambiguity.
This will leave entirely mysterious how anyone or anything could
determine what the actual denotation of any particular literal token
actually is, of course. That is assumed to be done somehow, but is
outside the scope of the MT itself.
With this change in wording, the actual equations can remain as they are.
Would that be sufficient flexibility for you, along with allowing IR
to consist of both resources and literal values, so that rdfs:Literal
doesn't force literal values to be resources?
Pat
PS I'm cross-posting this to both groups in case anyone can see a
fatal objection.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST