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

Re: rdf:datatype v xsi:type

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:49:08 +0300
Message-ID: <00ab01c274f0$e4364490$544516ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


C.f.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0166.html
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0001.html

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 16 October, 2002 10:23
Subject: rdf:datatype v xsi:type


> 
> One of the questions that came up when I talked to webont about datatypes 
> was why we were using rdf:datatype and not xsi:type.  I couldn't remember 
> the reason at the time, but I do think we need to have one.  Can someone 
> remind me please.
> 
> One that now comes to mind is that xsi:type can take qname values and we 
> need a URI for the datatype, and the standard namespace ref for xsd: does 
> not produce the right uri.  Also there is the potential for confusion if we 
> have one attribute that can take qname values and none of the others do.
> 
> Brian
> 
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 04:49:12 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT