- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2002 09:02:55 +0200
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-19 4:46, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 17:34, Pat Hayes wrote: >>> On Mon, 2002-02-18 at 13:34, Brian McBride wrote: >>>> At 23:58 14/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote: > [...] >>> (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. >> >> OK, let me try to fix this. > [...] >> Happy with that? It's a small extra write-up. > > Yes, something like that. > > Meanwhile, note that > > ex:integer rdfs:range _:x . > ex:otherProperty rdfs:range _:x . > > Isn't serializable in RDF/xml; the user has to make > up a real (URI ref) name for _:x. > > Not a show-stopper, but something we need to explain. It seems to me to be alot cleaner, economical, and simpler to just round out the set of range constraint properties with rdfs:lrange. rdfs:range "value range" value space only rdfs:lrange "lexical range" lexical space only rdfs:drange "datatype range" union of value and lexical spaces No need to muck about with extra URIs or special interpretation of the intersection of two range constraints with the same bNode (or URIref) value, etc. If you want e.g. dc:date to only take inline idiom values which are members of the lexical space of xsd:date, just say dc:date rdfs:lrange xsd:date . Done. Clear. Simple. Eh? 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 04:40:37 UTC