 |
 |
Dear Dave, dear Patrick, think it is one of the major problems with the current RDF drafts, that they say a lot of nice words about datatypes, but in fact do not allow to "define" any. I can't see how to get a literal2value map in RDF - there doesn't even seem to be a standardized way to point to a resource, which would provide such a map somehow. This might be one of the reasons rdf-semantics is that weak on datatype entailments. Think there is really missing some piece of vocabulary in the rdfs draft as compared to the rdf-concepts draft. I don't think DCMI can issue any recommendation based on drafts, which may change till they reach W3C recommendation - or at least a level, where W3C gives an official "call for implementation" level to the papers, which are now just drafts. rs