RE: Datatyping, rdf?:Datatype unnecessary

• From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
• Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 12:51:56 +0300
• To: <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160C1A@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jan Grant [mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 01 September, 2002 12:42
> To: RDFCore Working Group
> Subject: Datatyping, rdf?:Datatype unnecessary
> 
> 
> 
> Incidentally, we don't need
> 
> 	xsd:[Ii]nteger <rdf:type> <rdf:Datatype> .
> 
> since this also seems to be perfectly reasonable:
> 
> 	xsd:integer <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:Literal> .


Errr, and just what does it mean for xsd:integer to
be a subclass of rdf:Literal? Does that mean that
the members of the value space of xsd:integer are
literals? I think not.

The class extension of a datatype class is its 
value space. 

Unless you wish to define rdf:Literal to be the
present definition of rdfs:Datatype, I don't see
the above subClassOf relation as valid.

Patrick

Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 05:54:34 UTC