- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 May 2001 15:46:58 +0100
- To: Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 09:36 AM 5/8/01 +0200, Martyn Horner wrote: >What's the judgement on type IDs (range values etc in RDF) now that the >XML Schema spec is a Recommendation? I'm working on something like this for CC/PP, and have come up with the following: <rdfs:Class rdf:about='&ns-xsdt;integer'> <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">Integer value</rdfs:label> <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource='&ns-rdfs;Literal'/> <rdfs:comment xml:lang="en"> This class is used to represent any CC/PP attribute value that is an integer number. </rdfs:comment> <rdfs:seeAlso rdf:resource= 'http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/xmlschema-2.html#integer'/> </rdfs:Class> where &ns-xsdt; expands to the XMLschema datatypes schema URI. >Arity -- never sure if that's a legitimate word -- can the minOccurs, >maxOccurs attributes be copied over to RDF definition? I think they should be left for the logic layer work (DAML+OIL, etc.) >And another issue worth working on (but I think it's already active): >digital signing of resources (I guess this brings up questions of >canonicality of documents and hence works against my `resource is as >resource does' liberal approach). Is rights management in general part >of our concern now that we are drifting over to the question of legality >of RDF assertion? I think this is out of scope for RDFcore. #g
Received on Friday, 11 May 2001 13:29:27 UTC