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

Re: Datatyping desiderata - take 3

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:27:45 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 04:02 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>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...

Er... I think the intent was to be able to *use* them, not to specify 
them.  Personally, I'd prefer to start with the primitive types and then 
move on to derived types, but other views were expressed.

I think that if we remember these are desiderata, not requirements, it's 
OK.  These are points for consideration/evaluation of proposals, not 

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

Yes...  (9) addresses an aspect of backward compatibility.  My intituion 
for now is to keep them as separate items, so that we're reminded to look 
for other compatibility issues.

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

Yes... I'm feeling inclined to remove the example and just keep the 
placeholder with a reference to B.

>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...

That might be confusing .. my idiom 'C' used to be called 'P'.


       /\ \    Graham Klyne
      /  \ \   (GK@ACM.ORG)
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:54 UTC