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

Re: handling rdf:value

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Dec 2002 19:33:53 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 22:59 08/12/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote:

>After reading Franks section in the primer more carefully, I would like to 
>make the following suggestion for how to handle rdf:value, which I think 
>codifies the intent rather better than any other idea we've had so far.

The issue is closed.  We've stopped polishing the decisions.  We are 
finishing the text.

Pat, your brief from the telcon was:


ACTION 2002-12-06#1 PatH: suggest alternate text on rdf:value for
   primer by Monday 9th

ACTION 2002-12-06#2 PatH: update the rdf:value desc in the semantics doc

This was in the context of my summary (I think I said this and its 
misattributed in the log)


   path: your concern is the stuff in the primer; make sure it does not 
look like formal inferencing from reading the text

which you agreed to:


PatH: yes, that's it

You agreed to a request to propose alternative text that made it clear 
there were no formal inferences from rdf:value.

Would you like someone else to pick up this action?

And just so you don't think I'm just beating you up on process, I suggest 
your proposal is fatally flawed.  M&S contains the weight example:


Section 7.3 has

   <John_Smith> n:weight    _:m .
   _:m          rdf:value   "200" .
   _:m          n:units     n:Pounds .

Whilst this example as it stands wouldn't have a problem with the proposed 

   <John_Smith> n:weight    "200" .

I don't think its unreasonable to extend it to include:

   n:weight   rdfs:range    n:Weight .

and then it does.

We've been here.  We made our decision.  Let it stand and let the community 
comment on it.

Received on Wednesday, 11 December 2002 14:32:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC