Ivan said:
> Another mail from an RDF point of view... this time on the
> domain range draft[1]
>
> My question is: why weren't the xsd: datatypes used more
> extensively? For example, it is a little bit unnatural to me to use
>
> dc:modified [
> rdf:type ex:Period;
> # I am not even sure what to put here ]
>
> rather than
>
> dc:modified "2007-01-01"^^xsd:date;
>
> I realize ex:Period says 'date or date range', though, which
> is more complicated; nevertheless, it looks a little bit convoluted...
>
> [1] http://dublincore.org/documents/2007/02/05/domain-range/
I think one of the reasons for proposing non-literal ranges is that
implementers have occasionally wanted to use human-readable labels for
dates/periods e.g.
_:myfossil
dcterms:created [
rdfs:label "Devonian Period"@en
] .
Pete
---
Pete Johnston
Technical Researcher, Eduserv Foundation
Web: http://www.eduserv.org.uk/foundation/people/petejohnston/
Weblog: http://efoundations.typepad.com/efoundations/
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel: +44 (0)1225 474323
|