- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: 2001年7月18日 10:55:57 -0500
- To: Samuel Knopf <sknopf@student.ethz.ch>
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <200107181558.f6IFwrf24623@theinfo.org>
Please note that in this answer I am speaking unofficially -- I hope that the RDF Core Working Group will address these issues and provide more official answers, but until then... > 1. Is it possible or does it make sense to subclass the Literal class? I definitely think so -- it's a class like any other, and special types of literals should be subclassed form it just as you expect. > 2. How will atomic values and constraints on them be included in future > implementations of RDF-Schema? It's hard to say, but I'd take a look at the DAML work on datatyping to get an idea of how to do this sort of thing. > 3. What is currently the best way to model atomic types (such as > strings, integers, etc.). Current common practice seems to be to model them in XML Schema and refer to the types defined in the schema. Hope this helps, -- "Aaron Swartz" | ...schoolyard subversion... <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://aaronsw.com/school/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Wednesday, 18 July 2001 11:55:59 UTC