Re: [closed] pfps-01

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Subject: [closed] pfps-01
Date: Wed, 28 May 2003 21:38:41 -0500

> Peter,
> re. your comment
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0094.html
> archived as pfps-01:
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-01
> The WG has decided to accept this comment
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html
> The wording of the relevant section 3.4 has been altered in the latest draft
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#dtype_interp
> to read
> "The  datatype map which also contains the set of all pairs of the 
> form <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# sss ,sss >,  where sss is a 
> built-in datatype that has         well-defined lexical and value 
> spaces and a lexical-to-value mapping and  is named sss in XML 
> Schema Part 2: Datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2 ],  eg decimal ,string , is 
> referred to here as XSD. "
> 
> Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to 
> indicate if this respoonse to your comment is satisfactory.
> 
> PatHayes

I do not view this resolution as satisfactory.  

In my view the RDF documents should explicitly list those XML Schema
datatypes that are suitable, much as the OWL documents do.  In fact, the
OWL documents should defer to RDF in this matter.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research
Lucent Technologies