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

Re: RDF-ISSUE-87 (Revisit 2004 types): Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF

From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:37:08 +0200
Message-Id: <00B00E55-53E1-4448-BE72-9A3CDB038FB0@w3.org>
To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I do not see why we would have to do that. These datatypes are obviously useful in RDF and, actually, are used (eg, the microdata->RDF specification recommends using those). OWL and RIF has good reasons not to use them, but that is not binding for RDF imho.

Ivan



On May 2, 2012, at 17:29 , RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:

> RDF-ISSUE-87 (Revisit 2004 types): Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87
> 
> Raised by: Richard Cyganiak
> On product: 
> 
> Some RDF datatypes included in RDF 2004, such as xsd:gYear, have proven troublesome in RIF and OWL due to not being well-behaved w.r.t. ordering.
> 
> Revisit them to decide if anything is to be done about it.
> 
> 
> 


----
Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
mobile: +31-641044153
FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:34:39 GMT

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