From your last message, it seems my understanding of syntactic datatyping is similar to yours. In that framework, I'm not convinced that *either* of the following relations are needed. I.e. I'm not convinced we need to say anything about the rdf:type or rdf:Class of xsd:integer at this time, since it appears (needs to appear) only as part of a purely syntactic construct. Of course, if we're targeting more than purely syntactic datatyping, there's another story... #g -- At 10:41 AM 9/1/02 +0100, Jan Grant wrote: >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> . > >jan > > >-- >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/ >HP-unix: Open Sauce product, available in 57 distributions. ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 08:50:02 EDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:56 EDT