W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2001

FW: Re: Use/misuse of RDF:Value

From: by way of <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 22:21:13 -0500
Message-Id: <200103010322.WAA28281@tux.w3.org>
To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
[free from spam filter -rrs]

Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2001 08:07:38 -0500 (EST)
Message-ID: <51ED29F31E20D411AAFD00105A4CD7A770AF@zingiber.cakehouse.co.uk>
From: Lee Jonas <lee.jonas@cakehouse.co.uk>
To: "'lagoze@cs.cornell.edu'" <lagoze@cs.cornell.edu>
Cc: "'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Subject: FW: Re: Use/misuse of RDF:Value

I tried sending this to the rdf-interest group but it doesn't seem to have
got through...


-----Original Message-----
From: Lee Jonas 
Sent: 26 February 2001 16:11
To: 'www-rdf-interest@w3.org'
Subject: Re: Use/misuse of RDF:Value


That is, unless the constraint that there can only be one rdfs:range is
relaxed [and allow disjunctive semantics], though this tantamounts to
blasphemy for the Logic Boys.

Anyhow, I don't recall the RDFS spec being too specific when it comes to
validating qualified values.  The level of indirection is usually provided
by an anonymous resource.  Should an author be required to specify the type
of this anonymous resource in order to validate the qualified value in
entirety with RDFS contraints, or should the qualification be more free-form
with any RDFS constraints on a property defaulting to the rdf:value portion
only?

The latter would solve your problem.  I personally don't have any strong
views on this, though the ability to do either would be nice.

lagoze@cs.cornell.edu <lagoze@cs.cornell.edu> wrote:

<snip>
>That is, I can't write a schema that says a dc property can have a range
>that is either a rdfs:literal or an intermediate node.  The schema
>document makes some noise about creating a superclass to express the
>single range, but I certainly can't create a superclass for
>rdfs:literal?
Received on Wednesday, 28 February 2001 22:22:33 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:48 GMT