Re: Fragments - specific proposal

Peter -
  What you forget is that with a standard things that are not  
specified are not disallowed, they're just not specified - I am  
perfectly happy with datatypes living in the latter case
  -JH

On Dec 10, 2007, at 10:46 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:

> RDF has only rdf:XMLLiteral (and plain strings), do you really mean
> that?  If you want something more, you need to say which datatypes
> (e.g., xsd:decimal) you want.  Even requiring (minimal) OWL datatypes
> only gets you xsd:string and xsd:integer.
>
> peter
>
>
> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
> Subject: Re: Fragments - specific proposal
> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 10:52:57 -0500
>
>> OK by me.  I'm happy with datatypes qua RDF for now - however, if 1.1
>> comes up with a viable alternative then I'd be happy to consider
>> adding them
>>
>>
>> On Dec 10, 2007, at 9:25 AM, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> No datatypes, then?
>>>
>>> peter
>>>
>>>
>>> From: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.rpi.edu>
>>> Subject: Re: Fragments - specific proposal
>>> Date: Mon, 10 Dec 2007 09:12:44 -0500
>>>
>>>> In my proposal I was very clear - RDFS 3.0 Full would indeed be  
>>>> just
>>>> those language features (although, again, II am willing to
>>>> negotiate).  RDFS 3.0 DB (or whatever) would include  
>>>> restrictions as
>>>> in my answer to Carsten.
>>>>   -JH
>>
>> "If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would
>> it?." - Albert Einstein
>>
>> Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
>> Tetherless World Constellation Chair
>> Computer Science Dept
>> Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180
>>
>>
>>
>>

"If we knew what we were doing, it wouldn't be called research, would  
it?." - Albert Einstein

Prof James Hendler				http://www.cs.rpi.edu/~hendler
Tetherless World Constellation Chair
Computer Science Dept
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy NY 12180