- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 18 Feb 2002 15:41:48 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 13:34, Brian McBride wrote: > At 23:58 14/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > >Latest version of the datatype summary document now available at > > > >http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html > > > >incorporating ideas arising from discussions with Patrick S. (rdfs:drange > >and especially section 10). > > I would like to "go round the table" of the WG on the latest datatype > proposal. By go round the table, I mean to solicit the views of each > member of the WG, without initiating a debate on members views. We can > then summarize those views and deal with issues arising. > > Please answer the following questions: > > o Does the datatyping proposal meet your > needs and the needs of your users? > (Who are they?) (What is missing?) No. Two things are missing: (a) enough RDF/XML examples to get going in monkey-see-monkey-do fashion (b) S-B, i.e. a way to use rdfs:range to restrict the range of a property to the lexical space of some datatype. I think these are straightforward additions; they're as much about emphasis and documentation as technical specifics (though using rdfs:range this way requires that the model theory admit literals as subjects.) > o Are there features that could be dropped and > still meet the needs of your users? (Which?) I could live without doublets (rdf:value/rdf:dtype). I don't mind them being there, though. > o Does the proposal 'work for you'? I think so. I'm not sure I understand the question. > o Are there any concerns with the proposal > you would like to raise? (What are they?) > > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 16:42:18 UTC