W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > July to September 2001

Literals workaround?

From: Samuel Knopf <sknopf@student.ethz.ch>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 17:03:27 +0200
Message-ID: <3B55A53F.3C563FF0@student.ethz.ch>
To: www-rdf-comments@w3.org

I'm currently implementing an information service for a Grid-environment
based on JINI ( http://www.cscs.ch/projects/Sun-CR.html ). I have a
model, in which there are information producers that offer a set of
properties which an information consumer is able to query or subscribe,

I use RDF for the data exchange and wanted to use RDF-Schema to
represent the available catalogue of properties. I would like to put
strict constraints on the values these properties can have, ideally
using the XML-Schema typing and constraint system. However, this doesn't
seem to be available in RDF-Schema. I therefore created my own atomic
types as subclasses of the "Resource" class. However, this approach may
be problematic with future implementations of validators that validate a
certain RDF-Document against a RDF-Schema, because in the document,
there is a literal, while the schema expects a resource. 

1. Is it possible or does it make sense to subclass the Literal class?
2. How will atomic values and constraints on them be included in future
implementations of RDF-Schema?
3. What is currently the best way to model atomic types (such as
strings, integers, etc.).

Thanks a lot,

Samuel Knopf
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 11:24:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:15 UTC