Re: summary of status with respect to datatypes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 02/22/01

From: Dan Connolly <>
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="">
>  <rdf:value>10.0</rdf:value>
> </xsd:decimal>
> ]]]
> --        Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL
> 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.


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST