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

On 2002-04-18 1:33, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:


> Minor point. I know Im going back on what I said before, but now I
> see all the examples (congrats on those, BTW) I find the closeness of
> rdfd:datatype and rdfd:Datatype rather anxiety-producing.  (Does
> anyone else agree?) I think we should either go back to rdfd:range or
> something truly different like rdfd:typeCheckOnRange.

Would it help if we rather changed the name of the class to
rdfd:RDFDatatype?

Thus, rdfd:datatype associates an rdfd:RDFDatatype
with a given property.

The reason why I moved away from using rdfd:range is that it
is not the rdfd:range property which is constraining anything,
it is the semantics of the datatype itself, which is completely
opaque to RDF. All that the rdfd:range/datatype property does
is associate a datatype with a property, so that all datatyping
idioms used with that property are interpreted in terms of that
datatype.

The datatype itself constrains the literals to the members of
its lexical space and the bnodes to the members of its value
space based simply on the presence or absence of a lexical
to value mapping from the literal/lexical form to the value.
If there is none, then either the literal/lexical form or
value (or both) are invalid.

Thus, there is no range like semantics asserted by the
rdfd:range/datatype property itself in the same manner
as the rdfs:range property. So I wouldn't want to revert
to rdfd:range.

Patrick
 
--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com

Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 14:25:23 UTC