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

> 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:
>
>
> 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.

Per ?d rdfs:domain ?d that single uri denotes the valuespace and
the valuespace-to-lexicalspace mapping but *not* the lexicalspace.
Maybe for S-B we could use ``?p rdfs:range [ xsi:type ?d ]''
to say that the range of ?p is the lexical space of the datatype ?d
e.g.
  eg:Jenny eg:age "35" .

  eg:age rdfs:range _:1 .
  _:1 xsi:type xsd:number .

[...]

--
Jos