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

Re: DATATYPES: mental dump.

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:57:30 -0500
To: fmanola@mitre.org
Cc: Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, connolly@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011113125730E.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Subject: Re: DATATYPES: mental dump.
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:29:32 -0500

> Graham Klyne wrote:
> > 
> > At 10:14 PM 11/12/01 +0200, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > >It's one thing for RDF based *applications* to support and
> > >utilized XML Schema simple data types and their lexical and
> > >value spaces, but IMO RDF should itself be completely neutral
> > >to any particular data type scheme.
> > 
> > I agree.
> > 
> > My reading of what Peter/Dan have been saying is that XML schema datatypes
> > should be primus inter pares for data types in RDF, not somehow embedded in
> > the core of RDF.  (Which I think is fine.)
> 
> As long as a classical education isn't going to be required in order to
> read our specifications  :-)

On the other hand, I have little sympathy (as far as reading
specifications) for people without either a mathematical education 
or the ability to pick up a small number of not-very-difficult 
mathematical concepts.  [no :-)]

After all, it is probably less effort to pick up the mathematical concepts
required for simple model theory than to understand a normal ISO
specification.  [big :-)]

peter
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 12:58:24 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:38 EDT