W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

Re: 2002-04-16 RDF Datatyping WD submitted for review by WG

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:31:08 +0100
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <30670.1019039468@tatooine.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
>>>Patrick Stickler said:
> The first complete draft (excluding introductory and non-normative
> material) is available at
>    http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html
> and is presented to the WG for review.

I reviewed the above since the

was zipped up and not possible to read online.


  Looking good, I'm happy to see it published if the usual w3c doc
  production stuff is completed.
  (I won't be at Friday telecon)

I'd like to compare it to Pat's simple datatyping 2 now that it is
back online but I've not got the time this week.

Detailed Comments:


Are the rdfd namespace uRIs reserved for your use?
I.e is it OK to use http://www.w3.org/2002/rdf-datatyping

Maybe ask a W3C team person to reserve/create some URI to use
for this.  Have you got an RDF Schema for the terms you define?


Not sure what you are defining here - a term "rdf:Datatype" or
something in an XML namespace. 

I expect the former, just for clarity?

However reads confusing since in the first examples
it says "an rdfd:Datatype ..." then goes on to show some syntax
with rdf:* things and no sign of rdfd:Datatype.

Maybe also mention what the rdfd: namespace is for, why it is
separate from other namespaces?


examples need numbers, captions and links

Illegal examples need distinguishing from legal ones

(Aside: The contracted

<rdf:Description rdf:about="#John">
   <ex:age xsd:integer="25"/>

form can *always* be used since the lexical form of 
a datatype is always a string.  The longer form is still useful
to match the graph pattern (node, arc, node, arc, node)
and help explain it.

End of 3.1:
  "Obviously, this is only valid when the literals do in fact map to
  the same value under the respective datatype mappings."
which is as you mentioned above, for RDF datatyping applications
to determine, not RDF.


(Introduces rdfd:lex as an RDF Property.  Which makes the rdfd:Datatype
earlier look even odder.)

3.4.1 rdfd:datatype

is this different from rdfd:Datatype?  If it is the same, then
you need a forward pointer from the first mention.  If not, it
is confusing.


Link to the RDFD MT since you reference it.

4.3 "versus"

maybe a bad choice of phrase. Something like "Constraining values with
rdfd:datatype or rdfs:range"?

Although Dan Brickley has been backing away from using the constraint
word with RDFS

Give examples of legal/illegal uses according to the constraints
with either/both of rdfd:datatype and rdfs:range.


Needs at least 1 example

spelling: eqivalent


Needs at least 1 example


Link to definitions in RDF MT that you use


Ahah, the answers to my earlier questions.  But could have been explained
earlier.  And I think it was more being used as a shorthand for "an RDF
datatype interpretation as defined by this specification"

Hmm.  This doesn't make sense:

   <rdfs:Class rdf:about="&rdfd;Datatype">
      <rdfs:label xml:lang="en">RDF Datatype (Property)</rdfs:label>
      <rdfs:subClassOf rdf:resource="&rdf;Property"/>

It is an rdfs:Class and an rdfs:Property.  Surely that label is confusing.

Not sure of the RDFS style of:
      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="&rdf;Resource"/>

Everything is a resource right?

You don't have range/domains for the rdfd:Datatype saying that
they take resources(literals)


a "non-literal resource" !

Not sure that phrase helps much


The Dublin Core doc for this is

(latest version http://dublincore.org/documents/dcq-rdf-xml/ )

which is a DCMI proposed recommendation.

The URL Aaron gave is his own work, turning it into Ntriples and
has no status with the DCMI.


Maybe have ntriples output too; noting that the datatyping idioms
don't introduce any new triples.

Link to test cases / entailments?

Need more links throughout to the cited references such as RDF Schema
model theory, maybe to sections of the latter?

The pictures are all(?) JPGs and look rather fuzzy on my desktop around
the words; can you turn them into PNGs with solid colours?  Maybe this
is anti-aliasing?  The picture in section 4 is especially bad.

When you use phrases like "the inline datatyping idiom" make that
a link to the section that defines it.


Lots of w3c doc style things to fix :)

Received on Wednesday, 17 April 2002 06:31:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:12 UTC