W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > May 2012

Re: Proposal for adding new datatypes from XSD 1.1 (ISSUE-66)

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfpschneider@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 02 May 2012 05:33:51 -0400
Message-ID: <4FA0FF7F.7010303@gmail.com>
To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I think that it would be best if RDF and OWL used the same list of acceptable 
datatypes.

(By the way, the OWL WG has been dormant waiting for XSD 1.1 to finalize, so 
there is a bit of work for that WG to do as well.)

pete


On 05/01/2012 08:57 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> Dear all,
>
> XSD 1.1 has added a number of new datatypes, and revised some of the existing ones. XSD 1.1 is now a W3C Recommendation. ISSUE-66 asks the question whether to add the new types to the list of XSD types allowed in RDF.
>
> Alex has previously analysed the changes in XSD 1.1 from an RDF point of view:
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012Feb/0039.html
>
> I fully concur with his findings and recommendations, and hence propose:
>
>
> PROPOSAL: Resolve ISSUE-66 by adding xsd:duration, xsd:dayTimeDuration, xsd:yearMonthDuration and xsd:dateTimeStamp to the table of allowed XSD types in RDF Concepts ED Section 5.1
>
>
> (RDF Semantics has a redundant list of the same types; this also needs to be changed accordingly, or removed in favour of normatively referencing RDF Concepts.)
>
> Best,
> Richard
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 09:34:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:48 GMT