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

Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]

From: Tim Berners-Lee <timbl@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 17:31:31 -0500
Message-ID: <00c701c281f6$6da716c0$0301a8c0@w3.org>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I think fixed in this case means "a small number extended by standards body
work",
rather than 'anyone can make a new one".  Interoperability at the atomic
datatype
level is important.  But maybe I am being near-sighted.  In languages like
python
it is important to have a very well-defined common set of atomic datatypes,
but the again the ability to make new ones is rather neat.

I guess I could imagine the implementations of code for integer, real,
floating point
and rational arithmetic being handled as optimizations.

Tim

----- Original Message -----
From: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:58 AM
Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG
Telecon 2002-10-18]


> At 01:31 AM 11/1/02 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > > I feel that "^^", being syntactic, should only be usable with a
> > > fixed set of type URIs.
> >
> >that's indeed better
>
> I have a concern with that.  For example rational values as described in
> CC/PP.  I'm rather concerned that the type system would be closed.
>
> [later]
>
> Or does "fixed" in this context mean non-variable?  I have no problem with
> that.
>
> #g
>
>
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 17:30:28 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:56 EDT