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

Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 07:55:20 +0200
To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B897B568.EE8F%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-18 21:34, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> At 23:58 14/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>> Latest version of the datatype summary document now available at
>> 
>> http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html
>> 
>> incorporating ideas arising from discussions with Patrick S. (rdfs:drange
>> and especially section 10).
> 
> I would like to "go round the table" of the WG on the latest datatype
> proposal.  By go round the table, I mean to solicit the views of each
> member of the WG, without initiating a debate on members views.  We can
> then summarize those views and deal with issues arising.
> 
> Please answer the following questions:
> 
>  o Does the datatyping proposal meet your
>    needs and the needs of your users?

Almost (there's nothing critical missing really, but...)

I think that the adoption of the union interpretation of rdfs:drange

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0469.html

and the addition of one more range property rdfs:lrange to constrain
property values only to the lexical space of a datatype,

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0481.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0482.html

would be desireable -- because it allows for the use of the inline
(S-B) idiom as a datatyping idiom, and thus provides both for better
backwards compatability with present usage as well as for the most
intuitive, basic idiom to be retained and used for datatyping.


>    (Who are they?) (What is missing?)
> 
>  o Are there features that could be dropped and
>    still meet the needs of your users? (Which?)

The datatype triples idiom. Though it's OK to keep it.

>  o Does the proposal 'work for you'?

Yes. Though the union interpretation of rdfs:drange and
addition of rdfs:lrange round things out nicely and would
be a better final solution.

>  o Are there any concerns with the proposal
>    you would like to raise? (What are they?)

Nothing major.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 19 February 2002 00:53:50 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:16 EDT