- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 08:53:45 +0000
- To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
What does the class hierarchy look like? rdfs:XMLLiteral has to be a subclass of rdf:Literal for backward compatibility, right? rdfs:XMLLiteral also must be a member of rdfs:Datatype. My antenae are tingling, but I can't immediately see anything wrong with that. Brian At 17:37 28/10/2002 -0600, pat hayes wrote: >>Pat: >>> undatatyped literals were indeed un-datatyped >> >>fine. I'll roll back, > >You are such a REASONABLE bloke, Jeremy :-) > >> >>> rdfs:XMLLiteral is a masterpiece >> >>and Pat skilfully chooses an option that wasn't really meant to be on the >>table - I am afraid that will be the most work for me, but it shouldn't be >>too bad - but your flattery compensates for the additional work! >> >>Thinking about it, it probably will read OK, possibly better, than either of >>the alternatives I had given. >> >>I'll be down to one built-in datatype, which is clearly then a special case. >>It (alone) needs a lang tag in its interpretation, so that too is a special >>and unique case that then is non-genralizable (which will please brian). >> >>Having two sorts of literal typed and untyped is manageable (more manageable >>than three). And getting the XML stuff out of the abstract syntax into the >>datatyping will hopefully please Tim and Massimo. > >And, by the way, it also fits very nicely into the Lbase proposal, which >also includes XML structures as a special case (because there was no other >way to get them into it.) > >Pat > > >-- >--------------------------------------------------------------------- >IHMC (850)434 8903 home >40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell >phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 03:51:16 UTC