- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Wed, 18 Jul 2001 10:55:57 -0500
- To: Samuel Knopf <sknopf@student.ethz.ch>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Please note that in this answer I am speaking unofficially -- I
hope that the RDF Core Working Group will address these issues
and provide more official answers, but until then...
> 1. Is it possible or does it make sense to subclass the Literal class?
I definitely think so -- it's a class like any other, and
special types of literals should be subclassed form it just as
you expect.
> 2. How will atomic values and constraints on them be included in future
> implementations of RDF-Schema?
It's hard to say, but I'd take a look at the DAML work on
datatyping to get an idea of how to do this sort of thing.
> 3. What is currently the best way to model atomic types (such as
> strings, integers, etc.).
Current common practice seems to be to model them in XML Schema
and refer to the types defined in the schema.
Hope this helps,
--
"Aaron Swartz" | ...schoolyard subversion...
<mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://aaronsw.com/school/>
<http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 11:55:59 UTC