- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 21:28:54 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Patrick, you are the only person who ever mentions 'constraints'. You > seem to be inhabiting a different universe than the rest of us. Tell > you what: let us all agree to not talk of 'constraints', and not to > use the words 'prescriptive' or 'normative'. Then questions like the > above do not arise, and we can all get by with a lot fewer emails. Am I the only one who has ever read the RDF Schema spec?! Have a glance at section 3, titled, ahem "Constraints"... of which rdfs:range is one. In the world of data interchange, constraints are what keep systems reliable. Constraints which ensure that "foo" is not interpreted as an integer or someone doesn't have seven Fathers. XML Schema is all about constraints. This very goal of defining an RDF interpretation of data types for literals is about constraints. The whole *point* of being able to say that some literal "1010" is an xsd:integer rather than a foo:binary is so that we can enforce those constraints on data prior to interpretation so that our systems don't go BOOOM! Sorry, but I really *must* be on some other planet if none of the rest of you are thinking about constraints. Patrick
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 14:29:18 UTC