In trying to make the OWL semantics correspond to the RDF semantics I came up with the following problems in RDF datatyping: 1/ A datatype is an element of IR, because the RDF MT says that datatypes are denoted by URI references. However, rdf:XMLLiteral is said to be a datatype, but rdf:XMLLiteral is a URI reference. Something is wrong here. 2/ XSD-interpretations include in their datatypes the XML Schema datatypes that are problematic when removed from XML documents or have other problems. XSD-interpretations also include, for example, the datatype named FOO, which is not defined as an XML datatype. 3/ A datatype has to be more than is specified in the RDF MT. Except for XSD-interpretations, which explicitly mention the URI-reference to datatype relationship, there is no way of tying the intended URI-reference for a datatype to that datatype. For example, if I have D containing a datatype for integers and a datatype for strings, there is no way to require that a particular URI reference, say ex:int, denotes the integer datatype. It probably makes more sense to say that a datatype is a four-tuple, consisting of a URI reference, a lexical space, a value space, and a lexical-to-value mapping. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent TechnologiesReceived on Thursday, 16 January 2003 20:22:27 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 24 April 2007 12:17:11 GMT