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

Re: a few issues with daml+oil+concrete (XMLSchema Datatypes)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 12:01:52 -0500
To: sandro@w3.org
Cc: www-rdf-logic@w3.org, ht@w3.org
Message-Id: <20010216120152T.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Subject: Re: a few issues with daml+oil+concrete (XMLSchema Datatypes) 
Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 11:21:04 -0500
> 
> I think my problem is really with the definition of "datatype" in
> XMLSchema.  If xsd:integer is "a tuple", then (using programmer's
> terminology) it should have methods like "getFirstElement()" or
> "getValueSpace()" returning the set of all integers.  That's quite
> different than the definition you seem to be using where
> you would have methods like "getSuccessor()" returning an integer.
> That later definition is clearly the conventional one, and may be what
> XMLSchema really meant.

I agree with what I think is the intent here.  In essence, I am claiming
that we get to define what we mean by our use of xsd:integer in a daml
context.  I am then going on to interpret xsd:integer as the datatype class
of integers and speak of integers as instances of this class.


I have no commitment to the use of rdf:value.  If there is a better token
to use, by all means let us use it.  However, we should also use the one
that will be used by RDF for this purpose, when and if RDF decides to make
this use official.

peter
Received on Friday, 16 February 2001 12:03:49 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT