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

RDF Datatyping PART 1 [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-08-30]

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:30:55 +0200
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFAD6D8649.7101918E-ONC1256C2C.002CC9B4@agfa.be>

[trying to catch up w.r.t.
RDF Datatyping -- Current Working Proposal
Last Modified: 29 August 2002]
-- http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html

> PART 1: Core Proposal
> 2.1 rdfs:Datatype

so I guess we have

===========================================================
rdfs:Datatype rdf:type rdfs:Class .
rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .
===========================================================

IF                                    | THEN
-----------------------------------------------------------
?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .           | ?d rdfs:domain ?d .


> 2.3 Typed Literal

I still have to try have running code where that first item
of that pair is "a URI Reference denoting a datatype"
I was/am quite believing that an abbreviated token would
be enough to support XML-Schema primitive datatypes
(and an unquoted numeral for integer numbers
like DanC's :jenny :age 10.
in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/dt/typedLit.n3)


> 4. RDF Datatyping Model Theory

I would add here the imposed semantic conditions like

===========================================================
rdfs:Datatype rdf:type rdfs:Class .
rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property .
===========================================================

and the closure rules like

IF                                    | THEN
-----------------------------------------------------------
?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .           | ?d rdfs:domain ?d .

[I wonder if there are other closure rules...]

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 04:31:29 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:56 EDT