From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
Date: 02/22/01
From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org> Subject: Re: summary of status with respect to datatypes Date: Thu, 22 Feb 2001 08:49:57 -0600 > "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > > > A permit one > > Just one? > A doesn't allow that if there's a relationship between, > say, x and y, and another between y and z, that > there's another relationship between x and z? How > does it achieve that? Just one relationship is needed for something like size. There is, of course, nothing to prevent multiple relationships between an abstract object and a datatype value. > > B forbid several > > no, giving the datatype inline not forbidden; it's explicitly > licensed: > > [[[ > So that the value corresponding to the numeral 10.0 can be written > > <xsd:decimal xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#"> > <rdf:value>10.0</rdf:value> > </xsd:decimal> > ]]] > > -- Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL > http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24 > Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:23:12 GMT > > that example is equivalent, by the definition of RDF syntax, > assuming the same namespace declarations in effect, to: > > <xsd:decimal rdf:value="10.0"/> > > That example has been in ct24 since > revision 1.5 date: 2001/01/12 03:56:32. Yes, but I don't see a use of this in your document to relate an abstract object to a datatype value. The examples seem to indicate that the relationship to the literal is the one that is specified and the relationship to the datatype value is inferred from it. A fully-worked out set of examples would be illustrative. They would be helpful as we wrestle with a better version of the datatype spec that might relax some of the restrictions in the current proposal. peter
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST