W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > December 2001

Re: RDF speficiations (was RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot)

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:43:55 -0500
Message-ID: <019301c17c54$74af7f00$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> That's all well and good, but RDF while depending on XML Namespaces due to
> its dependency on XML does not explicitly agree or disagree with this
> draconian position.

My point in raising this (well known) example is simply to point out the
fact that one cannot blindly leverage other specifications even when they
are close to what one desires. It seems to be commonly accepted that RDF
datatypes ought at least use the simple XML Schema datatypes such as
"xsd:integer" etc. It seems like the politically correct thing to do in
order to promote harmony and world peace.

I submit that it is generally easy to define such simple datatypes and
unless the issues between RDF and XML are cleared up, namely that unless the
XML Schema formalism is itself incorporated (somehow) into the RDF DT model,
that "xsd:integer" ought be reserved for "integer defined according to XML
Schema 1.0", and that perhaps "rdf-dt:integer" would be more appropriate.

Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 18:45:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:38 UTC