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

Re: Proposed agenda item (no global datatyping)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 16:32:38 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020829162953.05dd4178@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: fmanola@mitre.org, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:18 29/08/2002 -0400, Frank Manola wrote:

>In the context of this discussion, I refer you to
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0167.html, in
>which Pat Hayes says:
>
> > >Is there an appealing use case for untidy literals that is not long
> > >range datatyping (aka implicit/global idiom)?
> > >
> > >Are we closing off any important extensibility paths if we go for
> > >tidy literals?
> >
> > With regards to this last point, yes. DAML and OIL and probably OWL
> > will need the flexibility of allowing (semantically) untidy literals,

Thanks for reminding us of this Frank.  There is also Jos's comment in

   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0254.html

[[really? I haven't seen OWL supporting untidy literals]]

Could someone please elaborate on owl's requirement.

Brian


   
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 11:34:52 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:29 EDT