- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 16:56:42 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 10:06 AM 3/13/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > At 01:03 PM 3/12/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: > >> works OK, since the bNode is a member of the value > >> space of xsd:integer; but > >> > >> Bob age "35" . > >> > >> generates a range constraint conflict since "35" is > >> a member of the lexical space, not value space of > >> xsd:integer. > > > > This is addressed/allowed by the latest datatyping proposal [1], in the > form: > > > > ex:Jenny ex:age "10" . > > ex:age rdfs:drange datatype:decimal . > >You missed my point, Graham. I was concerned with generic application >of rdfs:range constraints by RDFS Validators having no special knowledge >of datatypes. > >Obviously, I'm quite aware of the functionality of rdfs:drange. Yes, I missed your point. Let me see if I get it now. Given: Bob age "35" . age rdfs:range datatype:decimal . you say there is a range type inconsistency? I agree that there is an inconsistency here. I don't agree that it is a problem. Effectively, by saying that: age rdfs:range datatype:decimal . (and assuming that the value space of datatype:decimal does not include literal values) then I think you are saying that literals should not be used with this property. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Wednesday, 13 March 2002 12:07:46 UTC