> [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, > patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > > > > > Also, Frank, a question on dates: I've seen references to > > > multiple documents about what date types are supported. I imagine > > > that we can use RDFS to provide instructions to consumers of our > > > vocabulary as to which date format is being supported. Or do we > > > use rdf:datatype? There's quite a bit of discussion on data > > > types, but it seems disjointed. I can't help thinking that the > > > primer could bring this together. > > > > > > Also question: you all aren't really going to support values of > > > '"1999-08-16"^^xsd:date', are you? No offense, but this horrid. > > > No offense again, but this is absolutely horrid. What's wrong > > > with using RDFS to define the data type, rather than making the > > > value into an intelligent value (ie data type is incorporated > > > into the instance, rather than the vocabulary definition)? > > > Embedding intelligence into values is the worst thing you can do > > > for a data model, regardless of model meta-structure. > > > > > > This is a broader question to group, or a request clarification > > > if I'm reading this wrong. I'm hoping I'm reading this wrong. > > > > > > Shelley > > > > > > > As a point of clarification on this, it isn't the format that > bothers me -- > > it's the tying the datatype to instances rather than > vocabulary. I know that > > RDF/xml uses rdf:datatype rather than > '"1999-08-16"^^xsd:date', but this > > again attaches the datatype to the instance, rather than the > vocabulary. So, > > I could use http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#date for a date > column that has > > data of 199-10-10, and use http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer for > > another instance of the vocabulary (another document), and this > means time > > in seconds from a set date. Both are accurate, but neither is > compatible. > > > > See the problems? > > > > However, if we attach the rdf:datatype to the definition of the > vocabulary > > itself rather than any specific document, then the creators of the > > vocabulary can say that this property takes integers > representing number of > > seconds since whatever. And all instances (documents) based on the > > vocabulary would be compatible. > > > > Sorry, I know this is my strong data background talking, but I can see a > > nightmare in the making with this one. > > > > Shelley > > Shelley, > > You can specify the datatype range of a property using rdfs:range to > accomplish this. E.g. > > my:dateProperty rdfs:range xsd:date . > > And this asserts that all values of my:dateProperty are expected > to be of type xsd:date. > > Cheers, > > Patrick That's good to know Patrick. I must have missed this in the vocab document. And one can also assume, then, that people who create instances of a vocabulary (a specific document) can't override the data type that's shown in the schema. Is that correct? Thanks ShelleyReceived on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 07:04:58 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:15:19 UTC