[sc34wg3] Some comments on TMRM v6.0
Thu, 28 Jul 2005 13:32:16 +0200
On Jul 28, 2005, at 1:13 PM, Bernard Vatant wrote:
> This does not help to understand those primitives. I really would
> like to catch the point
> of defining a property as a couple (key, value), but so far I miss
> it, and the following
> comment "Properties are labeled values" adds to my confusion.
This remindds me of a question I have had for some time:
Does the RM assume that all values of a given property are of the
same type (taken from the same value set)?
Consider RDF as an opposite example: RDF literals may be untyped or
typed but if they are typed, it is because of the type information
comming with the literal. The type of a literal is not derived from
the predicate of the statement that the literal is the object of.
Jan Algermissen, Consultant & Programmer
Tugboat Consulting, 'Applying Web technology to enterprise IT'