- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
 - Date: Sat, 05 Oct 2002 10:34:00 +0100
 - To: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
 
Draft Question for Webont:
RDFCore are considering a number of ways of representing datatyped values 
in RDF graphs and RDF/XML.  We would like to know WEBONT's preference 
amongst the following options.  Please could you rank them in order of 
preference, and identify any which would be unacceptable.  Unacceptability 
is not a matter of taste; to label an option as unacceptable, a critical 
requirement that cannot be met must be identified.
Proposal A:
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>
The object of the age property denotes a string literal[*].
Proposal B:
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
     <rdfs:format rdf:resource="&xsdr;integer"/>
   </rdf:Description>
The object of an age property denotes a string literal [*] from the lexical 
space of xsd:integer.
Proposal C:
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age rdf:datatype="&xsdr;integer>10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>
The object of the age property denotes a member of the value space of 
xsd:integer.
Proposal D:
   <rdf:datatype rdf:property="&foo:age" rdf:datatype="&xsdr;decimal"/>
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>
Proposal D is proposal C with some syntactic sugar (the rdf:datatype 
declaration) so that it is not necessary to put an rdf:datatype attribute 
on every use of the age property.
Proposal E:
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="Jenny">
     <foo:age>10</foo:age>
   </rdf:Description>
   <rdf:Description rdf:about="&foo;age>
     <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&xsdr;decimal"/>
   </rdf:Description>
The object of an age property denotes an integer from the value space of 
xsd:decimal.
[*] A string literal is an old style RDF literal which consists of a 
unicode string and language identifier.
Received on Saturday, 5 October 2002 05:36:57 UTC