- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Tue, 06 Nov 2001 14:03:54 +0000
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 02:20 AM 11/6/01 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > I think we need to nail down the handling of simpler cases before getting
> > too involved in arcane syntax options. By simpler cases, I mean how are we
> > to interpret simple RDF like this:
> >
> > <rdf:Description rdf:about="#me">
> > <ex:shoeSize>10</ex:shoeSize>
> > </rdf:Description>
>
>dirt simple:
>
> <...#me> <...#shoeSize> "10".
Good.
> > and
> >
> > <rdfs:Property rdf:about="http://example.org/shoesize">
> > <rdfs:range rdf:resource="xsd:integer" />
> > </rdfs:Property>
>
>You've got an inconsistency there. "10" isn't an integer.
Aha...
In which case, I think you're flying in the face of existing RDF
practice. I, and I think many others, have certainly assumed that one can
write something like:
<ex:subj> <ex:prop> "10" .
To express the idea (to an application that knows about the vocabulary)
that <ex:subj> has a property <ex:prop> with the integer value 10.
E.g. what you are suggesting will break aspects of CC/PP and UAProf.
#g
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 09:26:03 UTC