- 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