- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:00:58 +0200
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: >>>... >>>Secondly, I was pointing out that XML Schema has untidy >>>semantics with regards to lexical forms of datatype >>>values -- and provides both global and local mechanisms >>>for associating a datatype with that lexical form for >>>interpretation. >>> >> >>XML Schema is stuck with Unicode strings in the DOM model. >>RDF abstract >>model can use other kinds of constants, e.g., binary objects. >>In fact, >>the new proposal is more reminiscent to how datatyping is done in >>programming languages like Java/C rather than XML Schema. For >>example, >>in these languages, built-in datatypes like numbers, strings >>or unicode >>characters have distinct syntactic representation, i.e., 5, >>'5', "5", 5d >>, and (float)5 denote five different things. >> > > Fine. Whatever. Put it on your wish list for RDF 2.0. We're > out of time, and we have already agreed that the stake-in-the-ground > is "it" unless it is demonstrated and agreed to be lacking. > > The only issue remaining is to decide between tidy and untidy > literals. Let's decide and wrap up. We ran out of time arguing about global/implicit idiom and trying to decide between tidy and untidy literals. _These_ are IMO the stumbling blocks to be put off until RDF 2.0! Sergey
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 10:01:08 UTC