- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 10:30:55 +0200
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
[trying to catch up w.r.t. RDF Datatyping -- Current Working Proposal Last Modified: 29 August 2002] -- http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html > PART 1: Core Proposal > 2.1 rdfs:Datatype so I guess we have =========================================================== rdfs:Datatype rdf:type rdfs:Class . rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . =========================================================== IF | THEN ----------------------------------------------------------- ?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . | ?d rdfs:domain ?d . > 2.3 Typed Literal I still have to try have running code where that first item of that pair is "a URI Reference denoting a datatype" I was/am quite believing that an abbreviated token would be enough to support XML-Schema primitive datatypes (and an unquoted numeral for integer numbers like DanC's :jenny :age 10. in http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/dt/typedLit.n3) > 4. RDF Datatyping Model Theory I would add here the imposed semantic conditions like =========================================================== rdfs:Datatype rdf:type rdfs:Class . rdfs:Datatype rdfs:subClassOf rdf:Property . =========================================================== and the closure rules like IF | THEN ----------------------------------------------------------- ?d rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . | ?d rdfs:domain ?d . [I wonder if there are other closure rules...] -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Friday, 6 September 2002 04:31:29 UTC