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

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

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 13:20:11 +0300
Message-ID: <010b01c278eb$70297cd0$c99316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

I agree fully with Frank's position.

Patrick

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
To: "Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: "RDFCore Working Group" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 18 October, 2002 22:25
Subject: Re: Draft minutes of the RDFCore telecon, 2002-10-18


> 
> Jan Grant wrote:
>  >
> 
> snip 
> > 
> > 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
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> 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 Monday, 21 October 2002 06:20:13 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:28 EDT