W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

Re: questions about rdfs:Datatype [Was: RE: Seeking normative definition of datatyping]

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 18:24:19 +0200
Message-ID: <00a101c29d43$ed8a7900$2c80720a@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Roland Schwaenzl" <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>



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


> > Well, some WG members prefer to not mention canonical DTs at all. 
> 
> Well, discussing a special case doesn't make the case "canonical".
> 
> Isn't XMLSchema a recommendation from the same organization developing RDF?

The point is that RDF Datatyping works irregardless of whether a given
datatype defines a canonical lexical space or not. Therefore, there is
no need to speak in terms of canonical lexical forms in the RDF specs.

Any mapping from non-canonical lexical form to canonical lexical form is
an operation entirely outside the scope of RDF datatyping, and if such
an operation is useful, great, but it's not the role of the RDF specs
to introduce it as it is irrelevant to the RDF datatyping machinery.

If Pat chooses to mention such an operation in an informal section, that's
probably OK, so long as it is not easily misunderstood as defining any
characteristic inherent in an rdfs:Datatype.

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 11:24:21 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT