- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2001 17:31:50 +0000
- To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
- Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, melnik@db.stanford.edu, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jos,
I'm almost happy with this idiom, except that I think it will be confusing
to use XML schema datatype URIs as properties. See my other message to Pat.
#g
--
At 10:43 PM 11/16/01 +0100, jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:
>[...]
> >
> > Am I the only one to see a conflict here? (though that may
> > not be so surprising ;-)
> >
> > I.e. what is the interpretation of the following knowledge:
> >
> > x s:age "P12Y" .
> > s:age rdfs:range xsd:duration .
> > s:age rdfs:subPropertyOf xsd:duration .
> >
> > According to the S proposal, either range or subproperty
> > relations can define type. Which is it going to be? Both?!
>
>
>I think that in the S-idiom it is (just)
>
> x s:age [ xsd:duration "P12Y"] .
>
>and
> s:age rdfs:range [ is rdfs:domain of xsd:duration ] .
>
>and
> xsd:duration rdfs:range [ is rdfs:domain of xsd:string ] .
>
>(datatypes in the S-idiom are properties, that S-imple ;-)
>
>--
>Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
__
/\ \
/ \ \
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Saturday, 17 November 2001 13:50:19 UTC