- 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>
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 -- 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