- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2002 16:13:28 +0200
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
1. Section 4.7, first example: do you have .lex and .val switched? I.e. shouldn't it be xsd:decimal.map rdfs:range xsd:decimal.lex xsd:decimal.map rdfs:domain xsd:decimal.val such that the subject of a .map predicate is a value of the data type and the object of a .map predicate is a literal in the lexical space of the data type? Also in the second example, you seem to be missing some 'c's in your .cmap suffixes, should it be xsd:integer.cmap rdfs:subPropertyOf xsd:decimal.map xsd:long.cmap rdfs:subPropertyOf xsd:integer.map xsd:int.cmap rdfs:subPropertyOf xsd:long.map xsd:int.cmap rdfs:subPropertyOf xsd:int.map 2. In section 4.9, Idiom A versus Idiom B, you state "Many existing RDF applications deploy Idiom B." But this is, I argue, false, since idiom B presumes support for the partitioning of the data type into its .map .lex and .val components, and this is not the case. Since xsd:integer.map is not the same as xsd:integer, idiom B is not in use anywhere. Idiom B of S is not equal to P, as you seem to suggest. Regards, 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 Thursday, 10 January 2002 09:12:58 UTC