RE: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jos De_Roo [mailto:jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com]
> Sent: 02 September, 2002 13:35
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate
> 
> 
> [...]
> 
> > 2. That those who think rdf:type should not be used, try
> >    suggesting a better alternative (other than xsi:type).
> 
> I don't know, but couldn't it be something like
>   ... rdf:Parsetype="Literal">
>     <xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer>
>   ...

Well, how would you then indicate which of the following
graphs are intended:

   ?s ?p xml"<xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer>" .

or

   ?s ?p xsd:integer"10" .

???

I would presume that we don't want to start analyzing the
XML literals to guess which are non-XML typed literals
versus real XML literals.

> (although I still think that it's better
> to have only primitive datatypes and describe
> the composed ones directly in RDF)

I'm not sure I follow you. Examples?

Patrick


> -- ,
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>