Re: Action needed: subClassOf on datatypes

Pat wrote:
[...]
> I would vote against (b), and think that (c) is wimpy; I think (a)
> (or (c) ) is the best solution, but would be willing to go with (d)
> if the WG feels that we *ought* to impose extensional conditions on
> datatype classes.  In rule terms, do y'all think that rdfD4 *ought*
> to be a valid rule (ie to be undeniably true under all
> circumstances), or would it be better to allow people to make, but
> also be free to not make, subClassOf assertions about 'external'
> datatypes? I like that latter approach, myself, because it is more in
> line with the intensional approach we have adopted generally, and it
> neatly sidesteps issues involving identity versus equality and other
> wierd stuff that seem to arise in XSD discussions.

OK, I like that too and I have experimented with that
in [1] e.g. xsd:integer rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal.
We prefer to do this rather explicitly as opposed
to implicit extensional stuff.
This should work quite well I guess, just that
it is a particular kind of declaration which is
machine readable.


--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/

[1] xsd:integer a rdfs:Datatype; rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal.