- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 07 Nov 2001 17:58:34 +0000
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: [...] >>>The reason why a range definition cannot be descriptive >>>of non-locally typed literals, is because lexical form >>>is specific to a given data type, and the binding of >>>a value to a given property may occur by various means >>>and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical >>>form that is not compatible with the data type of the >>>property. >>> >> >>Please can we have at least one concrete example, analysed >>for each of the three >>proposals S, P, X. >> >>Brian >> > > Perhaps I'm not understanding the S and P proposals, but > I don't see how any examples can be created that are > relevant to any of the proposals, as the S P and X > proposals are about attaching type to literals, right? > > What I'm talking about is when there is *no* type attached > locally to the literal. It's just the literal. > > What am I missing here? You have asserted: >>>and one can end up with a literal value having a lexical >>>form that is not compatible with the data type of the >>>property. Please show how that can occur with each of the three proposals, P, S, and X. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 13:03:23 UTC