- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 12 Apr 2002 02:03:30 +0200
- To: "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> > For those who are interested, the latest incarnation of the > > RDF Datatyping WD can be found at > > > > http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html > $Date: 2002/04/11 12:35:11 $ > > Hmm... on the one hand, I have been looking at each > draft saying "well, it doesn't have the use case > examples, and that's all I care about; I'll read > the next one." > > But then I peeked into this one... and I mostly > like what I see. well, I have concerns about the *either* ... *or* in [[[ The rdfd:range property imposes a datatyping constraint on its subject such that all values of the constrained property must correspond *either* to a literal node which is a member of the lexical space of the specified datatype (a lexical form), *or* to a non-literal node denoting a member of the value space of the specified datatype (a datatype value) to which is attached by means of either the rdf:lex property or a datatype property a literal node which is a member of the lexical space of the specified datatype. ]]] -- http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html this sounds like a union... and I don't see that as explained in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Mar/0151.html and as I still think we should have rdfd:range rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:range . to keep the benefit of RDFS entailment rule3 { :rule3 . ?s ?p ?o . ?p rdfs:range ?C } log:implies { ?o a ?C } . > For my money, it's good enough for 1st WD. > > If they editors (Stickler/Hayes/Melnick) > are happy to publish it with their > names on it, I'm happy to see it go out. -- Jos PS there is also some rdfs:Property stuff instead of rdf:Property and I think we also dropped rdfs:ConstraintProperty also rule2 is not needed given rdfd:range rdfs:range rdfd:Datatype . and rule3b is my above concern
Received on Thursday, 11 April 2002 20:04:08 UTC