W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: around the table on datatypes [ was: Re: datatyping draft 3 (for telecon)]

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:59:27 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Apologies to all, but it seems that I need to change my position.

All my fault -- I just missed something, as noted in my earlier message.

At 07:34 PM 2/18/02 +0000, you wrote:
>At 23:58 14/02/2002 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>Latest version of the datatype summary document now available at
>>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?)

(a) No
(b) CC/PP, myself
(c) A defined way to constrain a property range to the lexical space of 
some datatype;
e.g. for CC/PP:

    _:SomeClientComponent client-property:dpi "100" .
    client-property:dpi rdfs:range datatype:number .

>   o Are there features that could be dropped and
>     still meet the needs of your users? (Which?)

(a) The new section 10 (drange, etc.)
(b) rdf:type rdfs:subPropertyOf rdfs:dtype .  (as noted separately)

>   o Does the proposal 'work for you'?

Not quite.  See above.

>   o Are there any concerns with the proposal
>     you would like to raise? (What are they?)

I'm concerned about use of schema statements on rdf/rdfs vocabulary to 
switch idioms.

See separate messages.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:24:05 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC