- From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:35:09 -0500
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com>
- Cc: RDF Data Shapes Working Group <public-data-shapes-wg@w3.org>
* Peter F. Patel-Schneider <Peter.Patel-Schneider@nuance.com> [2015-02-12 12:13-0800]
> The current version reads:
>
> Property Datatype
>
> The values of a property may be limited to be an RDF Literal with a stated
> datatype, such as xsd:string or xsd:date.
>
> The earlier version read:
>
> Property Values belonging to Datatype
>
> The values of a property on instances of a class may be limited by their
> datatype, such as xsd:string or xsd:date.
>
>
> The current version is quite explicit that a restriction stating xsd:integer
> will not be satisfied by an RDF Literal like "1"^^xsd:int, even though the
> meaning of this literal is an element of xsd:integer. The earlier version
> was less explicit, although it appears that the restriction would be
> satisfied in the above situation. (The earlier version also talked about
> instances of a class, but that's irrelevant to the discussion here.)
>
>
> I propose to split this into two requirements:
>
> Property Datatype
>
> The objects of a property may be limited to be an RDF Literal with a stated
> datatype, such as xsd:string or xsd:date. The RDF Literal "1"^^xsd:int
> would not satisfy a limitation to xsd:integer.
>
>
> Property Data Values
>
> The objects of a property may be limited to be an RDF Literal whose value
> belongs to a stated datatype, such as xsd:string or xsd:date. The RDF
> Literal "1"^^xsd:int would satisfy a limitation to xsd:integer.
+1 to the the split, and my votes are +1 and 0 respectively.
> peter
>
>
> PS: A similar issue affects Property Value Enumerations. For example, is
> "01"^^xsd:integer valid when the enumeration is { "01"^^xsd:int }? What
> about for { "1"^^xsd:integer }?
Does it make sense for this to be parallel?
--
-ericP
office: +1.617.599.3509
mobile: +33.6.80.80.35.59
(eric@w3.org)
Feel free to forward this message to any list for any purpose other than
email address distribution.
There are subtle nuances encoded in font variation and clever layout
which can only be seen by printing this message on high-clay paper.
Received on Thursday, 12 February 2015 20:35:12 UTC