- From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 20 Sep 2002 22:28:34 +0100
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>>>Frank Manola said: > 1c. Did we ever decide to use something other than rdf:type as the > attribute? Yes, rdf:datatype (since it is a syntax thing, and all the other syntax "scaffolding" is in rdf:) > 2. since there's no explicit mention of rdfs (i.e., the namespace), is > this usage to be considered part of RDFS, or part of RDF? This is > partly my hobbyhorse about which language things go in, but also where I > need to explain local typed literals. A case could be made for > introducing them before getting into RDFS, since there's no explicit > syntactic connection. On the other hand, is this something like > rdf:type, where the full semantics don't become available without > RDFS-awareness? Part of RDF since it will be one of the core literal types (exact set yet to be decided) I think you can explain it before getting to rdfs:Datatype since it gives you the URI for the dataype-uri slot of a literal (mutter, also we haven't decided this, hurry up guys!) As you say, until you explain how schemas work, how defining datatypes is possible, the full power doesn't become apparent. Dave
Received on Friday, 20 September 2002 17:29:46 UTC