W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > December 2001

Re: In defense of S

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:37:46 -0800
Message-ID: <3C10398A.3B053B96@db.stanford.edu>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote:
> 
> Sergey Melnik wrote:
> [...]
> > Idiom B
> > =======
> >
> > Another way of using datatype mappings is to define the range of a
> > property as the *lexical space* of a datatype:
> >
> >   dc:date --rdfs:range--> [] <--rdfs:range-- xsd:duration
> 
> "the range of a property" is an ill-formed definite description;
> a property can have lots different classes as ranges.
> Not to mention that a bnode can't be the object of two
> different statements in RDF/xml.

Granted.

> We can use this idiom if, as Graham suggested[1], we pick
> names for "the lexical space of the xsd:duration datatype";
> say, rdfd:durationLexicalSpace. Of course, once we pick
> it, we would say
>         xsd:duration rdfs:range rdfd:durationLexicalSpace.
> 
> I think Idiom B is much akin to PL[2].

Absolutely. BTW, thanks for a nice summary! I'm going to reorganize the
DT document to reflect the new insights.

> I like the idea
> that
>         - we give names to all three (lexical, value, mapping)
>         parts of each of the primitive datatypes
> 
>         - we explain how to use them (PL/S-B, S-A)
> 
>         - we let users choose

I believe that's the way to proceed. I'm going to raise this point as an
action item tomorrow. Great suggestion!

Sergey


> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0646.html
> mid:5.1.0.14.2.20011129192853.00a00250@joy.songbird.com
> 
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Dec/0003.html
> mid:3C0C100C.245969A7@w3.org
> 
> --
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 22:09:41 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:01 EDT