Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
[...]
> The way I currently do qualified values is to employ an explicit
> 'qualified value' class x:QValue for which the following
> constraints/characteristics are defined:
[...]
> Anyone else think this would be a good idea to pursue?

Yes, I prefer something like that too... in particular, see:

  Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL
  proposal Jan 2001
  http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24

But it's hard to say this is a clarification of RDF 1.0...
i.e. it's hard to say that implementors of RDF 1.0 should have
implemented it this way.

[why the crosspost, by the way?]

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/