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

Re: Datatyping desiderata - take 3

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:02:44 -0800
Message-ID: <3C48B7A4.30B49196@db.stanford.edu>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham,

in "2. Use of XML-schema datatypes", you talk about derived types. I
think derived types are out of scope. In order to specify how a type is
restricted, special vocabulary would be required, and this is explicitly
off our charter...

I also think that (1) somehow goes together with (9).

In your examples, Idiom B seems notationally equivalent to Idiom C. Of
course, the difference is in what exB:date and exC:date represent.

BTW, I added the third idiom as Idiom P to the datatyping document
(Idiom D in yours). I don't mind renaming it to something else...

Sergey


Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> Some small changes this time:
> 
> - noted item 7 seems to duplicate 5/6 (not 4/5)
> 
> - added a little more explanatory text in the section on idioms
> 
> - presented all idioms using triples
> 
> - re-labelled the idioms A, B, C and D to reduce confusion about their
> being specific to proposals (but still acknowledging their origin in
> proposals).
> 
> #g
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 18:32:46 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:43:56 EDT