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

Re: A very short list of residual datatyping issues (just one ;-)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:58:16 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 18:49 08/03/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>Here's my very short list of outstanding issues that I see as
>still remaining to be resolved for the stake-in-the-ground datatyping
>proposal, with proposed resolutions:

Looks like 3 issues to me, not one.

>1. Union versus non-union interpretation of datatypes
>Overview of Issue:
>a) XML Schema associates a single URI with a datatype. That
>    URI denotes the entire datatype, not just its value space.
>    Stating that the URI only denotes the value space may be
>    considered contrary to the XML Schema usage and leaves
>    datatypes without a formally defined URI denoting the entire
>    datatype.

Thats issue 1.  Does the WG agree this is a problem.  I note that some 
previous posts used xsdr:decimal for RDF references to schema datatype.

>b) The present proposal does not provide any means of using
>    rdfs:range to constrain the values of datatyped properties
>    without resulting in the inability to use both global or
>    local idioms freely and without conflict.

Thats issue 2, but I don't know what it means.  Test case please.

>c) The semantics of rdfs:drange embodies a union interpretation
>    of datatypes by constraining a property's values to either
>    a member of the lexical space or a member of the value space.

Ok I was wrong, I don't see an issue here.

>Proposed Resolution:

Please stick to the process we agreed.  Does the WG agree the issue 
identified is a problem.

Please try not to get into lengthy discussion of ways to resolve issues 
before we have agreed there is a problem to fix.

Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 14:41:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC