- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:54:20 +0100
- To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Should all datatypes be subtype of rdfs:Literal, or maybe just xsd:string (and its subtypes)? Should we still have rdfs:StringLiteral defined in vocabulary as the class to which untyped literals belong? (Not a datatype) Jeremy > -----Original Message----- > From: Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 29 October 2002 09:54 > To: pat hayes; Jeremy Carroll > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: Re: rdfs:StringLiteral > > > 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 03:54:24 UTC