W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > January 2003

RE: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:38:08 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160C8C@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@ninebynine.org>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@ninebynine.org]
> Sent: 16 January, 2003 13:33
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Type of (the denotation of) a plain literal
> 
> 
> Patrick,
> 
> >What you're really asking is "can we do untidy, implicit datatyping"
> >and the answer is a big loud NO (regretably).
> 
> I think you're misunderstanding my point, which is certainly 
> *not* about 
> doing untidy implicit datatyping.  We've done that one to death 
> already.  Note that my test cases were about *satisfiability*, not 
> *entailment*.

Apologies. I was indeed thinking in terms of entailment.

> ... I 
> still think it's a question that should have a clear answer 
> when the RDF 
> and XML schema specs are consulted in combination.

I agree. And I see this being done as part of the discussed Note
that clarifies the relationship between RDF Datatyping and XML
Schema datatypes, this being only one of many issues that need
clarification.

I think the present RDF specs are sufficiently clear for that
other work to be done -- but if you think they still need to be
clearer, then certainly we can try to make them so.

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 07:38:12 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:55:21 EDT