- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2003 21:42:28 +0200
- To: "pat hayes <phayes" <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat wrote: [...] > I would vote against (b), and think that (c) is wimpy; I think (a) > (or (c) ) is the best solution, but would be willing to go with (d) > if the WG feels that we *ought* to impose extensional conditions on > datatype classes. In rule terms, do y'all think that rdfD4 *ought* > to be a valid rule (ie to be undeniably true under all > circumstances), or would it be better to allow people to make, but > also be free to not make, subClassOf assertions about 'external' > datatypes? I like that latter approach, myself, because it is more in > line with the intensional approach we have adopted generally, and it > neatly sidesteps issues involving identity versus equality and other > wierd stuff that seem to arise in XSD discussions. OK, I like that too and I have experimented with that in [1] e.g. xsd:integer rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal. We prefer to do this rather explicitly as opposed to implicit extensional stuff. This should work quite well I guess, just that it is a particular kind of declaration which is machine readable. -- Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/ [1] xsd:integer a rdfs:Datatype; rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal.
Received on Tuesday, 2 September 2003 15:43:08 UTC