W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > March 2002

Re: Datatyping issue, too many options?

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Sat, 16 Mar 2002 16:59:10 -0800
Message-Id: <p05101418b8b99a77ec8a@[]>
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 


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Monday, 18 March 2002 15:05:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:11 UTC