- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2002 13:59:27 +0000
- 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 >> >>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?) (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. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Received on Wednesday, 20 February 2002 09:24:05 UTC