- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 21 Aug 2007 10:43:45 -0500
- To: Norman Walsh <ndw@nwalsh.com>
- Cc: www-tag@w3.org
On Tue, 2007-08-21 at 11:30 -0400, Norman Walsh wrote: [...] > 3. Because the range is broad and the definitions aren't observable > facts, there's no precedent for inventing new values. > > I have some sympathy for this last point. I have a long standing > action item with the XSL/XML Query WGs to produce a RDDL document for > the XPath 2.0 Functions and Operators namespace document. I've been > waiting for the TAG issue to be resolved partly because I imagined > that its resolution would involve inventing a few more natures and > purposes, specifically in my case, ones for the nature 'XPath > function' and the purpose 'computing a result'. For that particular case, it seems straightforward to say: fn:base-uri rdf:type owl:FunctionalProperty. or: fn:base-uri rdf:type xpath:Function. xpath:Function rdfs:subClassOf owl:FunctionalProperty. It's not clear to me that anything more needs to be said about 'computing a result'. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 21 August 2007 15:44:02 UTC