- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 12 Mar 2002 07:19:16 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2002-03-12 at 05:51, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> [...]
> the following would be
> fully valid, but problemmatic in practice:
>
> age rdfs:drange xsd:integer .
> xsd:integer rdf:type rdfs:Datatype .
>
> myString daml:equivalentTo "35" .
> myString rdf:type rdfs:Literal .
>
> Bob age myString .
>
> Mary age [ xsd:integer myString ] .
>
> in which case, the application has to know how the actual
> literal node may be related to the bNode, and what if
> it doesn't understand what daml:equivalentTo means?
Then it's not likely to come to the relevant conclusions.
Incompleteness is part of life. I suggest you
get used to it. ;-)
> What is an application going to do with xsd:integer([myString])?
> It needs xsd:integer("35").
>
> How do I, using RDF/S vocabulary alone, write implications
> that depend on some node being a literal node, not just
> some node that may be a member of class rdfs:Literal.
You can't express syntactic constraints in the RDFS vocabulary.
> I fear we may be loosing an important distinction here.
We never had it.
> Perhaps rdfs:Literal is not your normal kind of class...
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 08:19:04 UTC