On 2002-03-17 2:59, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: >> On 2002-03-12 14:04, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote: >> >> >>> A very much lesser possible issue: is the name "rdfs:drange" appropriate >>> for its use to indicate allowable lexical forms? >> >> Since rdfs:drange has no semantic relationship to rdfs:range and >> does not in fact define any constraints which can be tested by >> a generic RDFS Validator, it seems that a different name would be >> a good idea. >> >> Jos and I had discussed the possibility of rdfs:datatype, and >> some of my N3 examples at the f2f reflected that. >> >> What rdfs:datatype (rdfs:drange) is really doing is simply associating >> a datatype with a property, so that some extra-RDF application is >> aware of the datatype context within which values of either idiom >> are to be interpreted. > > Right, exactly. I would be happy with that change. We ought, however, > to make it very clear that this association of a datatype only > applies to the objects of the property, not their subjects. And be > ready for someone to complain that it ought to apply to subjects > too.... Fair enough. And I don't expect that there will be much confusion in that regard as folks are already used to rdfs:range only applying to objects and not also subjects. Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Tuesday, 19 March 2002 07:00:58 EST
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:19 EDT