- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:16:38 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:23 16/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] >It is a matter of principle, mostly. RDF Datatyping is (and IMO should remain) >datatype framework neutral. It fully supports XML Schema datatypes, but also >supports any datatype framework which is compatable with the basic datatyping >model defined by RDF. > >Having inlined literals default to typed literals of a specific XML Schema >datatype violates this neutrality, and I see no real need for it.# Thanks for clarifying. I was kinda thinking there was no point in inventing another xsd:string when there is one already. Brian
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 09:14:17 UTC