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

Re: Draft minutes of the RDFCore telecon, 2002-10-18

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2002 15:25:23 -0400
Message-ID: <3DB06023.2060709@mitre.org>
To: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
CC: RDFCore Working Group <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Jan Grant wrote:

> 10.1 Are datatypes restricted to XSD datatypes?
>   jjc pointed out that opinions could be characterised as a difference
>   of emphasis on the importance of XSD compatability.
>   DECISION (unopposed): datatypes other than XSD ones are permitted.

I didn't see any point in taking up telecon time on this, but I'd like 
to clarify my own position on this.  Jeremey is correct, but it would be 
equally correct (and puts the emphasis in the right place from my own 
point of view) to say "opinions could be characterized as a difference 
of emphasis on the importance of *non*-XSD compatibility".  That is, I 
want to see non-XSD types supported, and I want it to be very clear in 
our specs that they are.  Most of my concern about previous text on this 
subject was about the fact that this wasn't particularly clear 
(especially given all the examples involving XSD types), so I'm quite 
happy with the above decision.  However, I also think it's perfectly 
reasonable for us to go on from there and say that, in spite of the fact 
that we support any reasonable type system that we can get our concepts 
around, we're paying special attention to XSD types (we do, after all, 
have an XML syntax, and it's the type system "closest to home"), and we 
expect that RDF implementations will support them.  (Preserving the 
distinction in "entailment levels" that Graham made).


Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 15:09:37 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC