- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 09:42:54 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com> To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Cc: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Sent: 03 November, 2002 12:35 Subject: Re: rdfs:Datatype question > I think you're all correct, in different ways. I think that, as Pat says, > there's no fundamental need for rdfs:Datatype in the core language. But > there are applications for which it might be a useful piece of additional > vocabulary. > > I think that trying to define *every* piece of possibly useful vocabulary > would be a slippery slope for this WG. SO the question becomes: what is > lost by NOT having rdfs:Datatype in the core RDF(S) specs? A reasonable term to base interoperability on. How else will applications be able to be told that a given URI denotes an RDF compatable datatype? > My own thoughts at this time are that someone might want to draft a NOTE > about using datatypes as interpretation properties (which as far as I can > tell is neither sanctioned nor forbidden by our work so far), and I think > such a note would be a natural place to introduce a term with the intended > meaning of rdfs:Datatype. I think it is very important to have it in the core specs, and not that much work. Patrick > #g > -- > > At 11:41 AM 11/2/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: > > >At 13:08 02/11/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > > >>IMO, we need rdfs:Datatype to define the set of classes which > >>have the required characteristics for RDF datatyping, namely > >>a lexical space, a value space, and an N:1 mapping from the > >>lexical value space where N > 0. > >> > >>The term rdfs:Datatype is a means to give a name to the set > >>of RDF Classes which exhibit those characteristics. > > > >That is a good point, which I translate as: the model theory may say > >nothing about the meaning of rdfs:Datatype, but would it be useful to > >applications, e.g. for example, knowing that something is a datatype > >could trigger an app to go to its datatype implementation registry and > >look for an implementation. I'm not entirely convinced by that > >example. Maybe Patrick has one. > > > >Intuitively, it would seem a bit strange to have a concept like the class > >of datatypes and not have a name for it. > > > >Brian > > ------------------- > Graham Klyne > <GK@NineByNine.org> >
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 02:42:56 UTC