- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:59:10 -0800
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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. Right, exactly. I would be happy with that change. We ought, however, to make it very clear that this association of a datatype only applies to the objects of the property, not their subjects. And be ready for someone to complain that it ought to apply to subjects too.... Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 15:05:16 UTC