W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: Datatype was RE: Confusion about Collections

From: Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 13:13:23 -0600
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-ID: <AOEKLHGMHIHGNIBEDMNMGELODFAA.shelleyp@burningbird.net>

<snip>

> > Yes, Patrick. This has been very helpful. I appreciate your
> clarification.
> >
> > Shelley
> >
> > P.S. Is this same discussion in the documents, and did I just miss it?
>
> It's here and there. Though it probably could be made more explicit.
>
> Have a look at the Primer draft, section 5.2
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-primer/#properties
>
> and the RDF Vocabulary Description Language (RDF Schema) draft, the
> section titled "rdfs:range" (no section numbers in that draft yet,
> unfortunately)
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_range
>
> Though, yes, the relationship between rdfs:range and rdfs:Datatype's
> could be made more explicit in the primer. I see that Frank has a note
> there to add more about this, so hopefully we'll see this eventually.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick

Thanks for additional clarification from both you and Frank on this and
other items, such as containers and collections.

One result of the discussion in the last few days is I'm dropping my chapter
originally titled "Reification: The RDF Big Ugly". I'm now writing one
titled "The Semantically Challenged: Reification, Containers, Collections"

Heh.

Thanks again!

Shelley
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 14:14:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT