- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:49:11 -0500
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:20 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote: > > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:14 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > > > One of the things I failed to realize in time to > > > put my weight behind it was that an approach to datatyping based on > > > interpretation properties, which was proposed by Dan Connolly, could be as > > > convenient to use, if not more so, than the current datatyping scheme, and > > > would > > > keep the core of RDF very much simpler. > > > > I agree. The interpretation properties[1] approach is very general, > > clean and logical. If it feels inconvenient, that seems to me like an > > argument for syntactic sugar rather than a different approach. > > > > 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html > > I think the interesting and practical work here would be to specify and > demonstrate how to use Interpretation Properties in a way that is 100% > compatible with RDF as specified. I think that's the only way to move > forward with this kind of work. Absolutely. Otherwise we'd be *adding* complexity rather than removing it. -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 14:49:39 UTC