- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 09:54:07 +0300
- To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Seth Russell" <seth@robustai.net> To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> Sent: 25 September, 2002 20:09 Subject: Re: Datatyping > Patrick Stickler wrote: > > >Well, I think you may be reading a bit too much into some recent > >comments on the rdf-core list. The W3C has a pretty clear process > >defined and I'm sure the WG will follow it. > > > Yes, I've been following all that pain. Sometimes I feel any one of you > could have designed data typed literals better than this committee > effort. I really hope that you'all end up with something that is simple > and not so riddled with compromises that people don't turn away from RDF > based upon it controted Rube Golberb complexity. That's been my primary motivation for sticking with this process for so long -- to try to help achieve a solution that is both useful and easy to use. I think the solution reflected in Friday's decision, presuming it is upheld, achieves that -- even though some folks will have to come to grips with the fact that literals are no longer treated as global constants (but er, that's what URIs are for anyway...) > >Still, one significant question regarding your proposal: What if > >one defines the range of the age property to be an integer. E.g. > > > > :age rdfs:range xsd:integer . > > > >The triple having the lexical node will then not be valid. If you > >said instead > > > > :age rdfs:range xsd:string . > > > >then the triple having the typed node would not be valid. > > > Why does the MT *need* to make the triple drawn to the LexicalNode > invalid in prescence of a range constraint ? Because the range assertion says that the object of the property is a member of the particular class, and in the case of a datatype class, its RDF Class extension is the value space. And a lexical node is not a datatype value, but a string. > .... thanks for the dialogue. You're quite welcome (actually, it's refreshing to talk about this datatyping stuff with someone outside of the WG ;-) Cheers, Patrick
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 02:54:12 UTC