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

RE: rdfs:range and datatypes

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 09:56:27 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B788773211440431621838@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: mdean@bbn.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Mike Dean [mailto:mdean@bbn.com]
> Sent: 21 November, 2001 01:32
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: rdfs:range and datatypes
> My apologies if this has been answered elsewhere in the
> email discussion.
> [1] suggests that only the P and P++ proposals involves the
> use of rdfs:range.  Is this true?  If so, it seems like
> we've missed a major opportunity to capture the intent of
> the ontology developer and make life easier on programmers
> using the ontology (who otherwise must presumably be
> prepared to handle any datatype or instance as the property
> value).
> 	Mike
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0295.html

The X and U proposals also support the use of rdfs:range
and I presume that the DC proposal does as well,
from the viewpoint of rdfs:range being treated as
a "constraint".

The ability of a given system to define rdfs:range constraints
which can be used to "filter out" knowledge that is expressed
in a fashion that is either unsupported or uninterpretable
by that system is very important, and I've tried to point
that out in the recent discussions, though I'm not sure
that it has been fully appreciated by a majority of the WG.

And I agree that given common usage of rdfs:range to
"name" the mapping from lexical form to data type value,
that proposals that preclude continued use in that
fashion are less attractive -- and possibly even ruled
out by the charter, depending on one's interpretation...


Received on Wednesday, 21 November 2001 02:56:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC