> > > If we are going to use bnodes, I would rather write this as: >> > >> > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber >> > _x realPart _:y1 >> > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 >> > _:y1 xsd:number "1.0" >> > _:y2 xsd:number "2.0" >> >> I'd prefer this representation too, not doubt. > >But aren't you confusing data type with property here? Sorry, there are two different proposals on the table for using bNodes. DanC's version would be like yours below, Sergey's like the above. I was talking to Sergey in Sergeyish. Pat >Shouldn't it rather be: > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > _x realPart _:y1 > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 > _:y1 rdf:value "1.0" > _:y1 rdf:type xsd:number > _:y2 rdf:value "2.0" > _:y2 rdf:type xsd:number > >or better yet > > _x rdf:type ComplexNumber > _x realPart _:y1 > _x imaginaryPart _:y2 > _:y1 rdf:value "1.0" > _:y1 rdf:type xsd:float > _:y2 rdf:value "2.0" > _:y2 rdf:type xsd:float > >??? > >Patrick -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayesReceived on Wednesday, 7 November 2001 16:40:02 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC