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

Re: rdfs:Datatype question

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:42:49 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20021104103932.03dbb2f0@127.0.0.1>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

At 09:42 AM 11/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > I think that trying to define *every* piece of possibly useful vocabulary
> > would be a slippery slope for this WG.  SO the question becomes:  what is
> > lost by NOT having rdfs:Datatype in the core RDF(S) specs?
>
>A reasonable term to base interoperability on. How else will applications
>be able to be told that a given URI denotes an RDF compatable datatype?

The only concern for *standard RDF* applications is that it denotes the 
type of a literal, which is now indicated syntactically.

My motivation is this:  I don't fundamentally oppose the idea of having the 
term rdfs:Datatype, but I think it's properties may need to be thought 
through and at this stage of nailing down a standard, I really think we 
should be focusing on what's really needed and decisions that cannot be 
deferred.  I think the rdfs:Datatype term can be deferred without harm -- 
i.e. we or someone else can decide to introduce it later.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:10:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:53:57 EDT