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

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.


Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 07:38:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:03 UTC