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

RE: new datatyping proposal consistent with OMG's MOF

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:45:48 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160B81@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sergey Melnik [mailto:melnik@db.stanford.edu]
> Sent: 08 August, 2002 19:36
> To: RDF Core
> Subject: new datatyping proposal consistent with OMG's MOF
> 
> 
> 
> I just reviewed OMG's MOF 1.4 standard (to remind, basically MOF is a 
> kind of abstract syntax used for representing and manipulating UML 
> artifacts. MOF is the counterpart of RDF in the UML world):
> 
> http://www.omg.org/cgi-bin/doc?formal/2002-04-03
>
> The new datatyping proposal seems consistent with the way how 
> primitive 
> datatypes are introduced in MOF. See Sec. 2.3.5, p. 2-14 for 
> details. In 
> particular,
> 
> "MOF defines six standard data types that are suitable for technology 
> neutral metamodeling. (Other primitive datatypes can be defined by 
> specific technology mappings or as user or vendor-specific 
> extensions. 
> However, the core MOF specification says nothing about what 
> they mean)."
> 
> Those primitive datatypes are boolean, integer, long, float, 
> double, and 
> unicode string.

These are all provided for by XML Schema primitive datatypes,
and can be supported without making such datatypes native
to RDF.


> MOF is an industry standard that has been around for years. 
> If we choose 
> a similar path, we are likely to be on the safe side. Moreover, a 
> similar treatment of datatypes in RDF will facilitate the 
> alignment of 
> MOF and RDF (see 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Aug/0042
.html for 
details).

MOF and RDF can be just as well aligned using the
stake-in-the-ground mechanisms without native RDF
datatypes. I see nothing compelling here that would
require such datatypes to be native to RDF.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 07:49:14 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:25 EDT