- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:10:45 +0200
- To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-04 0:59, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > ps 1 URI (in S) seems to maybe working e.g. > :Jenny :ageL [ xsd:int "30" ] . > and > :Jenny :ageG "30" . > :ageG rdfs:range [ is rdfs:range of xsd:int ] . > but indeed :ageL and :ageG are different properties I think we've traded one problem for two now... I.e., I don't see how this can work with just one URI, since the range constraints for the two idioms have different semantics and refer specifically to the lexical or value spaces, not to the entire datatype per TDL. I.e. Jenny ex:ageL _:1 . _:1 rdf:value "30" . _:1 rdf:type xsd:int . ex:ageL rdfs:range xsd:int . (= *.val) Jenny ex:ageG "30" ex:ageG rdfs:range xsd:int . (= *.lex) How does using two different properties change the fact that the two range constraints have different semantics? You've not lost the distinction between which space is being referenced by which idiom. The other problem with this is that, as has been stressed in a recent posting of mine, this will require *two* variants of all ontologies, which I consider to be completely unacceptable -- and expect that the folks maintaining DC, PRISM, MARC, ONIX, DAML+OIL, etc. will agree. So I'm just not seeing this approach as moving us towards a solution... (and believe me, I'd love to see us move towards a commonly accepted solution! ;-) Cheers, 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 Monday, 4 February 2002 03:09:54 UTC