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

Re: Datatyping issue, too many options?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 14:02:47 +0200
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8BCF587.11000%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-03-17 2:59, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote:

>> 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....

Fair enough. And I don't expect that there will be much confusion
in that regard as folks are already used to rdfs:range only applying
to objects and not also subjects.


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 07:00:58 UTC

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