- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2002 11:39:20 +0100 (BST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2 Sep 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > > > -----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? Yes. > I think not. OK. > 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. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Monday, 2 September 2002 06:41:59 UTC