- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 08:36:10 +0200
- To: ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-19 3:01, "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com> wrote: > > [...] > >> o Does the datatyping proposal meet your >> needs and the needs of your users? >> (Who are they?) (What is missing?) > ... > resolving S-B is needed I think that the union treatment of rdfs:drange does this nicely. Consider the following example, including all *four* datatyping idioms (inline, value triple, doublet, and datatype triple): ppp rdfs:drange xsd:integer . aaa ppp "10" . bbb ppp _:1 . _:1 rdfs:dlex "10" . ccc ppp _:2 . _:2 rdfs:dlex "10" . _:2 rdfs:dtype xsd:integer . eee ppp _:3 . _:3 xsd:integer "10" . All of the above idioms define the pairing ("10",xsd:integer) which unambiguously denotes the integer value 'ten'. The property value of ppp is either a member of the lexical space (literal) or member of the value space (bNode) and the graph syntax makes it crystal clear which partition of the union the actual property value corresponds to; with no conflict nor confusion of the global range typing for any of the idioms. Eh? C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0469.html for more use cases... 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 Tuesday, 19 February 2002 01:34:40 UTC