- 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