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

Re: Literals workaround?

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:55:57 -0500
Message-Id: <200107181558.f6IFwrf24623@theinfo.org>
Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
To: Samuel Knopf <sknopf@student.ethz.ch>
Please note that in this answer I am speaking unofficially -- I 
hope that the RDF Core Working Group will address these issues 
and provide more official answers, but until then...

> 1. Is it possible or does it make sense to subclass the Literal class?

I definitely think so -- it's a class like any other, and 
special types of literals should be subclassed form it just as 
you expect.

> 2. How will atomic values and constraints on them be included in future
> implementations of RDF-Schema?

It's hard to say, but I'd take a look at the DAML work on 
datatyping to get an idea of how to do this sort of thing.

> 3. What is currently the best way to model atomic types (such as
> strings, integers, etc.).

Current common practice seems to be to model them in XML Schema 
and refer to the types defined in the schema.

Hope this helps,
       "Aaron Swartz"      | ...schoolyard subversion...
  <mailto:me@aaronsw.com>  |  <http://aaronsw.com/school/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 11:55:59 UTC

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