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

RE: 2001-09-07#6: ns qualified parseType values

From: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:50:50 +0100
To: "'W3C Rdfcore'" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <000a01c13d24$446d5f20$01000001@MITCHUM>


> Art Barstow:
>
> Other than the M&S and DAML+OIL's definition of 
> daml:Collection, are there other groups that have defined 
> a rdf:parseType?  
> 
> Are there any apps that need to define a new parseType
> [and are seeking advice from the W3C on how to define a 
> new type]?
> 

Other than log:Quote, not that I'm aware of (I've asked for feedback on
this in rdf-logic and rdf-ig: in fact I was just writing up the response
to those lists). 

I find it more than interesting that when it has occurred, people have
used Qname like constructs. Frankly, I'd be surprised if we never see
another extension to parseType. I can easily envision people wanting to
use parseType to qualify RDF-XML literals with XML Schema simple and
complex types, as XML Schema gets used in anger (to me it's a clear
point of tangency between RDF and XML Schema). It'd be great to be able
to say outright that people can reuse their XML Schema datatypes for
XML-RDF literals (imho, expect to see Schema datatyping to become a
standard practice in enterprise level middleware). Point being this: if
people can use their precanned types, they won't need to define new
parseTypes :)

Bill
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 09:52:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:39:43 EDT