W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > March 2003

RE: siteData-36: strawman + httpRange-14 [ "Resource-Type:" ]

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 11:50:32 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90BFB@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <tbray@textuality.com>, <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jonathan Borden [mailto:jonathan@openhealth.org]
> Sent: 05 March, 2003 18:28
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); tbray@textuality.com; 
> sandro@w3.org
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: siteData-36: strawman + httpRange-14 [ "Resource-Type:" ]
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> 
> >
> >
> > > ... a point of RDF datatyping is that a property's
> > > _datatype_ is a function of the property, so that we might have:
> >
> > Err... no. Unfortunately, it's not. There is no way to do
> > RDF datatyping in terms of property-specific knowledge.
> 
> oops, right. My point was only that we don't need to overload 
> each and every
> use of a date on the "dc:date" property.
> 
> >
> > RDF Datatype provides no machinery whatsoever for global
> > datatyping, such that a specific datatype can be associated
> > with a property and that datatype is used to interpret
> > non-explicitly datatyped literal values.
> 
> right, so neither can RDF say that "dc:date" is a date 
> either... this is an
> orthogonal issue to the original discussion, but you are correct.
> 
> In any case I hope you will agree that given
> 
> site:last-modification-date rdfs:domain ex:Site .
> 
> foo:bar site:last-modification-date "2003-03-05" .
> 
> that we can infer:
> 
> foo:bar rdf:type ex:Site .

Sure.

Patrick
Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 04:50:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:16 GMT