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
|