W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: Latest iteration of RDF Datatyping WD (ship it!)

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:03:30 +0200
To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: "Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF91D59A60.BB935102-ONC1256B98.007F3D7F@agfa.be>

> > For those who are interested, the latest incarnation of the
> > RDF Datatyping WD can be found at
> >
> >    http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html
> $Date: 2002/04/11 12:35:11 $
>
> Hmm... on the one hand, I have been looking at each
> draft saying "well, it doesn't have the use case
> examples, and that's all I care about; I'll read
> the next one."
>
> But then I peeked into this one... and I mostly
> like what I see.

well, I have concerns about the *either* ... *or* in

[[[
   The rdfd:range property imposes a datatyping constraint
   on its subject such that all values of the constrained
   property must correspond *either* to a literal node
   which is a member of the lexical space of the specified
   datatype (a lexical form), *or* to a non-literal node
   denoting a member of the value space of the specified
   datatype (a datatype value) to which is attached by
   means of either the rdf:lex property or a datatype
   property a literal node which is a member of the lexical
   space of the specified datatype.
]]]
   -- http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html

this sounds like a union...
and I don't see that as explained in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0151.html
and as I still think we should have
  rdfd:range rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range .
to keep the benefit of RDFS entailment rule3
  { :rule3 . ?s ?p ?o . ?p rdfs:range ?C } log:implies { ?o a ?C } .

> For my money, it's good enough for 1st WD.
>
> If they editors (Stickler/Hayes/Melnick)
> are happy to publish it with their
> names on it, I'm happy to see it go out.

--
Jos

PS there is also some rdfs:Property stuff instead of rdf:Property
   and I think we also dropped rdfs:ConstraintProperty
   also rule2 is not needed given
     rdfd:range rdfs:range rdfd:Datatype .
   and rule3b is my above concern
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 20:04:08 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:26 EDT