- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2001 14:33:56 +0200
- To: melnik@db.stanford.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > >To do that, it would have to > > >identify the value being mapped to. All it does in infer that > > >such a mapping exists. > > > > No, the mapping is named right there in the triple, eg > 'xsd:integer'. OK, I'm now reading 'mapping' as meaning the pairing of a lexical form to a data type, such that the lexical form corresponds to one and only one value in the value space of the data type, but the *mapping* itself doesn't say which that is. Eh? If that's a correct interpretation, then I agree that such a "mapping" does not have to use any representation for that actual value. > In > particular, using my:age has little to do with datatyping, since "12" > still denotes just a string. No type is assigned to "12" by using the > property my:age. I don't see where you get that. What if the defined value space for the my:age data type was years and the lexical form defined integer notation? Seems to me that a given data type is free to have as complex a value space as it likes and as complex a corresponding lexical space as is needed. Are you saying that given xxx --foo:date--> "2001-11-29" that foo:date is not a data type? And for that matter, just *how* do you differentiate a data type property from a non-data type property, which your example above for my:date seems to imply? Patrick
Received on Friday, 16 November 2001 07:34:40 UTC