W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: datatypes and MT

From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 20:04:31 +0100
To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <OF11174056.9B27306F-ON41256AF9.00680767@bayer-ag.com>

Bria McBride wrote:
>
> Pat's Proposal:
>
>    pros:  o using schema can add datatyping to existing RDF idiom
>
>    cons:  o requires change to RDF/XML to explicitly represent datatyping
>             in the RDF/XML without schema processing
>
>           o does not allow alternative lexical representations of a datatype
>             for a given property
>
>    feat:  o a hexint is a different datatype from a decint.  Values of type
>             hexint are in a different class from those of type decint, though
>             there could be a common super class Integer.
>
> Sergey's Proposal:
>
>    pros:  o can fully represent datatyping info in current RDF/XML syntax
>             without schema processing
>
>           o different lexical representations can be used to describe the same
>             data value
>
>    cons:  o requires use of a new idiom to represent datatyped values
>
>    feat:  o the lexical representation used must be explicitly coded in the
RDF;
>             it can't be inferred from a schema.

I see DanC's message
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0030.html
and the thread around that also as a kind of proposal, no?
If so, how would you describe it's pros, cons and feat?
Thanks Brian.

--
Jos
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 14:06:20 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:28 EDT