W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > September 2001

Re: Literals (Re: model theory for RDF/S)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:50:21 -0500
Message-ID: <3BB32E9D.61CC0577@w3.org>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> The way I currently do qualified values is to employ an explicit
> 'qualified value' class x:QValue for which the following
> constraints/characteristics are defined:
> Anyone else think this would be a good idea to pursue?

Yes, I prefer something like that too... in particular, see:

  Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL
  proposal Jan 2001

But it's hard to say this is a clarification of RDF 1.0...
i.e. it's hard to say that implementors of RDF 1.0 should have
implemented it this way.

[why the crosspost, by the way?]

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 09:50:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:32 UTC