- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 20:43:12 +0200
- To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > Well, prf:Numbers aren't specified by the RDF specs. > Plain literals are. But xsd:string's aren't. So why should we say anything about them or their presumed relation to plain literals? (charter references to XML Schema datatypes withstanding) > It's not for RDF to say how its own syntax (plain literals) > works with XML Schema datatypes? > > I disagree. Our charter includes... > > "RDF Schema must use and build upon XML Schema datatypes to the fullest > extent that is practical and appropriate." > -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter > > I find it practical and appropriate to use XML Schema datatypes > in this case. Note the qualification "that is practical and appropriate". I believe we have satisfied the charter without necessitating hard dependencies between RDF and XML Schema. > > So my recommendation is to say nothing at all about any relationship > > with xsd:string and plain literals in the RDF specs (and this is not > > the same as leaving it an open issue -- as it will/should be addressed > > in a separate Note addressing such XML Schema related issues). > > > > It's enough to be clear what plain literals are, so that one can > > be clear and precise about their possible relationship to particular > > datatypes such as xsd:string and others. The actual relationships are > > out of scope. > > > > I expect/hope that Dan, and others, would be satisfied with that. > > > > Yes? > > No. I guess that calls for a vote, as this is not, I think, up to editorial discretion. Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 17 December 2002 13:46:39 UTC