- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 4 Sep 2002 11:16:15 +0100 (BST)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 4 Sep 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > > 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 > class). Yep. > 2. Move section 1.2 Desiderada to a non-normative appendix. > > 3. Streamline introductory material, with references to the other > specs as appropriate. Yep; although it's odd to move the motivational material to the end. Editorial stuff like this doesn't need WG approval. > 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. I think this is an error; I've already put my position on this (ie, that a string and a langstring would appear to be different types) > 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...) This does need clarification, yes. But hang on... you suggest that <eg:foo> <eg:age> (xsd:integer)"10". might (with literals "at the blunt end") imply... (xsd:integer)"10" <rdf:type> <xsd:integer> . But if "TypedLiteral" is the class of typed literals, then whenever <xsd:someType> <rdf:type> <rdf:Datatype> . then we have that members of <xsd:sometype> are members of rdfs:TypedLiteral, and hence members of rdfs:Literal. Which would kind of imply (since subclassing is a relation of class extensions) that <xsd:integer> <rdf:type> <rdf:Datatype> . implies <xsd:integer> <rdfs:subClassOf> <rdf:Literal> . ... which is why I suggested Datatype is a superfluous extension (particularly since it seems that all literals should carry a type, but I don't wish to descend into "dogmatic assertions" here :-) ) > 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?) Yes, again I think the conversation that has arisen about of the constraining nature or otherwise of rdf:domain and range is probably going to happen with datatypes. > 7. Rework the presentation of Part 2 as "Suggestions for Future Work" > (or split it off into an entirely different document?) Yes - again, we need a bag for "here's stuff that we'd like to do". > 8. Expand example in 3.1 to include triple with 'age' arc, as > suggested. > > 9. Clarify agnostic position of RDF regarding datatype clashes, > as for any contradiction, in section 3.2 Seems fine. > Is the above OK with the WG? That's my tuppence :-) -- 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/ "NOP" is a trivial implementation of an executable Z subset.
Received on Wednesday, 4 September 2002 06:18:22 UTC