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

RE: Datatyping, rdf?:Datatype unnecessary

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:39:20 +0100 (BST)
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0209021138010.28291-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Jan Grant [mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk]
> > Sent: 01 September, 2002 12:42
> > To: RDFCore Working Group
> > Subject: Datatyping, rdf?:Datatype unnecessary
> >
> >
> >
> > Incidentally, we don't need
> >
> > 	xsd:[Ii]nteger <rdf:type> <rdf:Datatype> .
> >
> > since this also seems to be perfectly reasonable:
> >
> > 	xsd:integer <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:Literal> .
>
>
> Errr, and just what does it mean for xsd:integer to
> be a subclass of rdf:Literal? Does that mean that
> the members of the value space of xsd:integer are
> literals?

Yes.

> I think not.

OK.

> The class extension of a datatype class is its
> value space.
>
> Unless you wish to define rdf:Literal to be the
> present definition of rdfs:Datatype, I don't see
> the above subClassOf relation as valid.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 06:41:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:55 EDT