W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case)

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 10:05:57 +0100 (BST)
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
cc: "jos.deroo.jd" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Graham.Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, jjc <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0208081000580.3661-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>  RDF has no native
> datatypes, and I've understood it to be WG
> consensus that RDF would be datatype and datatype
> framework neutral.

I've always understood our charter's ibts and pieces about XSD
integration to be less than neutral; anyway, I'm not part of the
consensus on this.

>  We're not defining
> any built-in datatypes for RDF

It appears that community feedback is that that's exactly what we ought
to be doing (for a small set of datatypes)

> and need to allow
> the datatyping mechanisms to work equally well with
> all URI denoted datatypes

Given the above, our task would appear to be to come up with a
story about the treatment of various datatypes that arose during
requirements collection. If we can do that, great. If there are
stumbling blocks, then this needs a(nother) rethink, or a retreat to an
earlier proposal.


jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Generalisation is never appropriate.
Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 05:07:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC