From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (email@example.com)
One other quick comment. From: Jeff Heflin <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Suggested changes to concrete datatypes proposal Date: Mon, 29 Jan 2001 17:26:31 -0500 > 3) we still restrict what can be said about the concrete domain. For > example, you can't have a DataType as range of rdf:type (so users can't > specify new instances of a data type), as range of rdfs:domain (so no > property can have a data type as its domain), or as the domain and range > of rdfs:subClassOf (so no hierarchical relationships can be specified). Unfortunately, rdfs:Class is the universal class, as rdfs:Literal is an instance of rdfs:Class. Making rdfs:Class be only for abstract classes would require a change to RDFS. peter PS: Note that even the current proposal would require some sort of change along this line.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST