- 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