Re: Comments on RDF Schema specification

 -----据沙 五獣走-----
 左浬 紫寓: Daniel Lipkin <DLipkin@Saba.com>
 閤澗 紫寓: 'www-rdf-comments@w3.org' <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
 凧繕: 'www-rdf-interest@w3c.org' <www-rdf-interest@w3c.org>; Daniel Lipkin <DLipkin@Saba.com>
 劾促: 2000鰍 5杉 2析 鉢推析 神穿 7:13
 薦鯉: Comments on RDF Schema specification
 
 
 1. Now that XML Schemas are in Last Call, I think it is appropriate that the atomic datatypes used in examples as values for rdfs:range be based on the actual XML Schema Datatypes. Even if an RDF schema for these datatypes has not been written yet, this change would make the examples more realistic.
 For instance, Example 3.2 might read: 
 <rdf:Description ID="rearSeatLegRoom"> 
 <rdf:type resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#Property"/> 
 <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#PassengerVehicle"/> 
 <rdfs:domain rdf:resource="#Minivan"/> 
 <rdfs:range rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/1999/XMLSchema-datatypes/decimal"/> 
 </rdf:Description> 
 Ditto for the example in section 7.1. 
 Even better would be explicit text defining this usage formally, going into more detail than the last paragraph in Section 1. Notice that this is also Recommendation 9 of the Cambridge Communique.
 2. It would be useful to include a discussion of the relationship between the range constraint as applied to container vs. literal objects. That is, is it possible to constrain a property to refer to a resource with rdf:type of rdf:Bag using rdfs:range? If not, and these concepts are orthogonal, an explanation of the reasoning.
 In other words, some official guidance regarding the "Constraining Containers" thread last month on www-rdf-interest (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Apr/0068.html).
 Regards, 
 -Daniel 
 Daniel Lipkin 
 Chief Architect 
 Saba 
 650-581-2577 
 dlipkin@saba.com

Received on Monday, 1 May 2000 19:57:18 UTC

AltStyle によって変換されたページ (->オリジナル) /