- From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:38:30 -0800
- To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAMpDgVz+1Jqob3hKEBFPnKvUMzyAygoVaTggLx19Jac24aL8Eg@mail.gmail.com>
This is more-or-less a compilation of stuff from my previous message, sent
as a list of what I think has to be done at a minimum.
I'll send out a separate message with more details on rdf:langString, as
discussed in the telecon today.
peter
Semantics
- datatypes in RDF interpretations
Which ones are required?
- issue 13, 63 say rdf:XMLLiteral and rdf:HTML are optional
- WG deliberations make rdf:langString and xsd:string required
- status of rdf:langString
Is it a datatype, does it belong to rdfs:Datatype?
- strange - need pointer -
- need fix to Concepts
- allowing other datatypes in RDF and RDFS interpretations
Currently only allow required two (was four). Fix?
- fix simple interpretations for xsd:string and rdf:langString
In progress.
- missing parts of datatypes
ICEXT(D) = value space of D in RDFS interpretations
typing of values in RDF interpretations
- are datatype value spaces subsets of the domain of discourse
- not in D-interpretations
- not in RDF interpretations as they currently stand
- the change above might make it so
- not in RDFS interpretations as they currently stand
- the change above makes it so
- ICEXT(rdfs:Literal) is the union of the value spaces
being fixed in RDF Semantics.
Concepts
- simple (plain?) literals
Should they be removed from Concepts?
- error
It should be removed from Concepts.
Received on Wednesday, 27 February 2013 17:38:56 UTC