Re: Datatyping issue, too many options?

On 2002-03-17 2:53, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:


>> A very much lesser possible issue:  is the name "rdfs:drange"
>> appropriate for its use to indicate allowable lexical forms?
> 
> Well, I suggested that we change it to rdfs:dcrange in order partly
> to make it even less similar to rdfs:range. The 'range' part does
> make some sense, since it applies to the object of the property
> rather than the subject, but I agree it is potentially confusing.

I propose we call it rdfs:datatype and its purpose is to associate
a datatype with a property for extra-RDF datatype validation. Thus,
there is no confusion with any rdfs:range like functionality
"below the line".

I also like rdfs:lex better, too ;-)

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 Tuesday, 19 March 2002 06:58:16 UTC