W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2002

Proposals for changes to current datatyping spec

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 10:00:32 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBABD@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I would like to propose the following changes/clarifications be made
to the datatyping spec (the latest restructured document) based on
recent discussions:

1. Replace the usage of rdf:type for typed literals to rdf:datatype
   (having the pairing rdf:datatype/rdfs:Datatype mirror the current
    pairing rdf:resource/rdfs:Resource for syntactic attributes
    taking URIref values and which identify members of a specific

2. Move section 1.2 Desiderada to a non-normative appendix.

3. Streamline introductory material, with references to the other
   specs as appropriate.

4. Clarify the nature of literals in section 1.5 and the nature
   of typed literals in section 2.3 so that it is clear that
   all that is relevant to datatyping is the unicode string
   component, no matter how many other components may exist
   within a literal's structure.

5. Clarify the relation of rdfs:Literal, rdfs:Datatype, and
   typed literal (begs the question of whether rdfs:TypedLiteral
   is warranted, as a subclass of rdfs:Literal...)

6. Clarify the verbage in section 3.1, Global Datatyping Assertions,
   so that it is clear that RDF does not assert any constraints,
   but only that an application is free to do so (reference to
   other specs as appropriate which discusss this nature of 
   rdfs:range in general, Primer?)

7. Rework the presentation of Part 2 as "Suggestions for Future Work"
   (or split it off into an entirely different document?)

8. Expand example in 3.1 to include triple with 'age' arc, as

9. Clarify agnostic position of RDF regarding datatype clashes,
   as for any contradiction, in section 3.2

I'm sure other changes/modifications/corrections will also be
required before we publish the first WD, but the above seemed
to be the major ones for the moment. I'm still awaiting comments 
from Pat and Sergey...

Is the above OK with the WG?


Patrick Stickler
Chief Technology Specialist
Forum Nokia, Nokia Mobile Phones
(+358 50) 483 9453
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 03:00:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:15 UTC