Re: [humanmarkup-comment] [measurment] new version of type toolkit

[cognite@zianet.com]

Thanks.  This puts your work in context nicely.

As for value space, the section in the reference you give at W3C,  some of
the system properties you might expect are surprisingly omitted.  Two are:

        -  required-absence (prohibited membership, often definitive in
linguistics) and

        -   partial ordering (mathematical; also often appearing in natural
language systems).

The way they describe sets and subsets, though, seems quite compatible with
(E)BNF
expansion.  That would be easy to read, and legible by parser generators.

SC

At 11:15 AM 27-09-2002 +0300, you wrote:
>
>This was probably going to the list, so I have kept the whole message 
>and included my comments inline.
>
>cognite@zianet.com wrote:
>> interesting stuff.  Types in general are not obvious in the real world,
>> though readily assignable arbitrarily in definable worlds.  These, of
>> course, are clearly labeled as  W3Cese. ;-)
>
>Yes, W3C is the authority for those simple type definitions I have 
>imported. Although I am no big fun of W3C XML Schema, it's what I use 
>90% of the time because our clients want it, because they know what to 
>do with it (or at least their software does).
>
>Although W3Cese, those types are a bridge between markup and typed 
>languages or databases. Note that RDF itself will not interpret or 
>validate instances of a type; it will just pass a value of a certain 
>type to another application. The RDF type hierarchy serves as a 
>description of the relationships between the types, something you never 
>know what use may bring. One example may be type fallback. For example, 
>if an application can't figure out what positiveInteger is, it will 
>interpret it as an integer.
>
>
>
> >  Labelling like that might apply
>> for whatever vocabs we pick up as given dialects' descriptors, perhaps.
>> Something to keep in mind in extending and integrating this with our other
>> stuff..
>
>
>Yup.
>
>
>> In the earlier version
>> At 03:52 PM 23-09-2002 +0300,  Manos Batsis wrote:
>> 
>> - about Isaviz.  Nice justification for working on an exciting thing set
>> aside earlier!
>
>Isaviz actually helped me in spoting errors, while it gives a nice view 
>of the RDF graph.
>
>
>> - about the not-to-be-lost-in-the-shuffle canonical  graphic representation
>> of the W3C types at 
>>         http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/PR-xmlschema-2-20010330/type-hierarchy.jpg
>> If we use this kind of graphic, let's use colors that are more Different,
>> like blue  and green, not blue1 and blue2.  
>> 
>> Judging from Manos' module of their "built-in primitive types" and "built-in
>> derived types", "derived" is supposed to mean exactly... what?  What are the
>> rules for their "complex types" as opposed to these, if there's an easy way
>> to say.
>
><anti-pedantic>
>Well, those characterizations are mostly conseptual, although with 
>technical grounding. Primitives are what is commonly accepted as 
>primitives in programming languages.
>
>XML Schema anticipates two derivation methods on simple types, 
>derivation by restriction and derivation by list.
>
>A type that is derived by restriction, is a subset of it's parent. More 
>specifically, it's value space [1] is a subset of the parent type's 
>value space. So, integer has a value space of al integer numbers, but 
>positive integer has a value space composed of positive integers only.
>
>A typed that is derived by list, is a set that can have only members of 
>the parent type.
>
>Both derivation methods are conseptual utilities for validation of value 
>spaces.
></anti-pedantic>
>
>> Is there an equivalent EBNF?  That might make it more clear. 
>
>I'm not aware of one. In general, you may want to study [2]. People that 
>may want to extend and build their own simple types will be interested 
>in the regular expressions that can be interpreted by W3C XML Schema.
>
>[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#dt-value-space
>[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/
>
>
>Manos
>
>
>