Re: Comments on RDF Schema specification

    -----원본 메시지-----
    보낸 사람: Daniel Lipkin <DLipkin@Saba.com>
    받는 사람: 'www-rdf-comments@w3.org' <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
    참조: 'www-rdf-interest@w3c.org' <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>; Daniel Lipkin <DLipkin@Saba.com>
    날짜: 2000년 5월 2일 화요일 오전 7:13
    제목: Comments on RDF Schema specification
    
    
    1.      Now that XML Schemas are in Last Call, I think it is appropriate that the atomic datatypes used in examples as values for rdfs:range be based on the actual XML Schema Datatypes.  Even if an RDF schema for these datatypes has not been written yet, this change would make the examples more realistic.

    For instance, Example 3.2 might read: 

    <rdf:Description ID="rearSeatLegRoom"> 
      <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> 
      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/> 
      <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Minivan"/> 
      <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-datatypes/decimal"/> 
    </rdf:Description> 
    Ditto for the example in section 7.1. 

    Even better would be explicit text defining this usage formally, going into more detail than the last paragraph in Section 1.  Notice that this is also Recommendation 9 of the Cambridge Communique.

    2.      It would be useful to include a discussion of the relationship between the range constraint as applied to container vs. literal objects.  That is, is it possible to constrain a property to refer to a resource with rdf:type of rdf:Bag using rdfs:range?  If not, and these concepts are orthogonal, an explanation of the reasoning.

    In other words, some official guidance regarding the "Constraining Containers" thread last month on www-rdf-interest (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Apr/0068.html).

    Regards, 

    -Daniel 

    Daniel Lipkin 
    Chief Architect 
    Saba 
    650-581-2577 
    dlipkin@saba.com