W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > February 2013

my list of changes needed to Semantics and Concepts

From: Peter Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:38:30 -0800
Message-ID: <CAMpDgVz+1Jqob3hKEBFPnKvUMzyAygoVaTggLx19Jac24aL8Eg@mail.gmail.com>
To: RDF WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
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.


- 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.

- 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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:25 UTC