- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 22 Nov 2002 15:07:22 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 14:42, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > Brian wrote: > >This point seems to be > > subtle enough to have misled DanC. > > I am sorry Dan, I've got another one. Indeed; no need to apologize; on the contrary, thanks for checking carefully. [...] > A proof of (with appropriate knowledge of datatypes). > > xsd:float rdfs:subClassOf xsd:double . [...] > QED. yes, I am convinced. > Moreover we see that > > xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:double . > > but not > > xsd:int rdfs:subClassOf xsd:float . > > by similar reading of the recommendation. I agree. > (I am sorry Brian, I know you hate this. I tend to side with Dan in > principle, but also wonder about why we should want to do this. > I am not sure anyone would implement this). > > Frankly worrying about these relationships is implicit in our charter. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 16:07:26 UTC