- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2001 19:37:46 -0800
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Dan Connolly wrote: > > Sergey Melnik wrote: > [...] > > Idiom B > > ======= > > > > Another way of using datatype mappings is to define the range of a > > property as the *lexical space* of a datatype: > > > > dc:date --rdfs:range--> [] <--rdfs:range-- xsd:duration > > "the range of a property" is an ill-formed definite description; > a property can have lots different classes as ranges. > Not to mention that a bnode can't be the object of two > different statements in RDF/xml. Granted. > We can use this idiom if, as Graham suggested[1], we pick > names for "the lexical space of the xsd:duration datatype"; > say, rdfd:durationLexicalSpace. Of course, once we pick > it, we would say > xsd:duration rdfs:range rdfd:durationLexicalSpace. > > I think Idiom B is much akin to PL[2]. Absolutely. BTW, thanks for a nice summary! I'm going to reorganize the DT document to reflect the new insights. > I like the idea > that > - we give names to all three (lexical, value, mapping) > parts of each of the primitive datatypes > > - we explain how to use them (PL/S-B, S-A) > > - we let users choose I believe that's the way to proceed. I'm going to raise this point as an action item tomorrow. Great suggestion! Sergey > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0646.html > mid:5.1.0.14.2.20011129192853.00a00250@joy.songbird.com > > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Dec/0003.html > mid:3C0C100C.245969A7@w3.org > > -- > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 6 December 2001 22:09:41 UTC