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

Re: draft question: option C

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Tue, 15 Oct 2002 10:25:28 -0500
Message-Id: <p05111b05b9d1e34e2e57@[65.217.30.172]>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

>I'm a little unclear on proposal C... in
>particular, what does it say about what
>folks can put in schemas to constrain
>an age propoerty to be/look-like decimals?
>
>
>The 6Sep minutes
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0081.html
>cite a 29Aug proposal
>http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html
>which says "The RDF class extension of an rdfs:Datatype
>is its value space."
>
>I want to be sure that whatever spec we come up with,
>I can continue to use the datatype property idiom...
>     <k:Thursday r:about="#_thu10">
>         <dt:date>2002-10-10</dt:date>
>     </k:Thursday>
>	-- http://www.w3.org/2002/10dc-uk/itin3.rdf
>
>So far, our (published WD) specs have been consistent
>with a view that classes and properties are disjoint. (In
>SWAD, we use that assumption for lint-style checking.)
>The 6Sep decision seems to conflict with the
>use of the datatype property idioim under
>the disjointness-of-properties-and-classes
>assumption.

I was not aware that there was any such assumption. On the contrary, 
in fact: the MT has been designed to allow the possibility of a class 
and a property being the same. If this is an assumption, maybe we 
should reflect it formally in the language. Certainly that would make 
the Webont work a little simpler.

Pat


-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola              			(850)202 4440   fax
FL 32501           				(850)291 0667    cell
phayes@ai.uwf.edu	          http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 15 October 2002 11:25:25 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT