- From: Pierre-Antoine CHAMPIN <pachampi@caramail.com>
- Date: Fri Apr 21 08:54:11 2000
- To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@paranormal.se>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <956318865022648@caramail.com>
Actually, I just saw I misunderstood you : you were suggesting <rdf:Property ID="myprop"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/> <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/> </rdf:Property> and I suggested <rdf:Property ID="myprop"> <rdfs:range rdf:resource="&rdf;Literal"/> <rdfs:containerRange rdf:resource="&rdf;Seq"/> </rdf:Property> The reason I prefer the second option is that rdfs:range keeps addressing the atomic value(s) of the property, (for either mono- or multi-valued properties) and containerRange addresses the kind of multi-valuation allowed. This would allow both <prop> some literal </prop> and <prop> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li> item 1 </rdf:li> <rdf:li> item 2 </rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </prop> assuming that the schema-valider allows the property to have a <containerRange> typed value, as long as all its list-items have type <range>. We can assume that more than one rdfs:containerRange is allowed (why not), and then that no rdfs:containerRange disallows any (which is consistent with the stricter range-validity interpretation). Pierre-Antoine ______________________________________________________ Boîte aux lettres - Caramail - http://www.caramail.com
Received on Friday, 21 April 2000 08:54:11 UTC