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

RE: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2002 13:36:02 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBABC@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dave Beckett [mailto:dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 03 September, 2002 13:30
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg
> Subject: Re: Datatyping, rdf:type inappropriate 
> 
> 
> >>>"Patrick.Stickler" said:
> > > Please just pick your favourite name to use in rdf: ...
> > >=20
> > > I'd also suggest that rdfs:Datatype was better,=20
> > 
> > How about
> > 
> >    rdf:datatype      Specifies an rdfs:Datatype
> > 
> >    rdfs:Datatype     The class of RDF compliant datatypes
> > 
> > ???
> > 
> > If rdf:datatype gives you indigestion, then I think
> > that rdf:dtype is the next best.
> 
> Both are fine.
> 
> I can see user problems with the d and D confusion though.

Well, users seem to be doing just fine with rdf:resource
and rdfs:Resource.

Seems to me that rdf:datatype and rdfs:Datatype reflects
a consistent naming convention, eh?

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 3 September 2002 06:36:05 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:55 EDT