- 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