Re: Datatyping issue, too many options?

On 2002-03-12 14:04, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> wrote:


> A very much lesser possible issue:  is the name "rdfs:drange" appropriate
> for its use to indicate allowable lexical forms?

Since rdfs:drange has no semantic relationship to rdfs:range and
does not in fact define any constraints which can be tested by
a generic RDFS Validator, it seems that a different name would be
a good idea.

Jos and I had discussed the possibility of rdfs:datatype, and
some of my N3 examples at the f2f reflected that.

What rdfs:datatype (rdfs:drange) is really doing is simply associating
a datatype with a property, so that some extra-RDF application is
aware of the datatype context within which values of either idiom
are to be interpreted.

Eh?

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 Wednesday, 13 March 2002 03:12:00 UTC