- From: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE>
- Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:45:21 +0100 (MET)
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
> > No. I'm proposing that the end result be much more like > > s --p--> xsd:du:x puuh! Hiding semantics in ascii-art. > > > Though, why use xsi:type rather than rdf:type? Are we saying > > that a typed literal resource is a different kind of resource > > than a typed non-literal resource, and hence the typing is > > declared differently? Are we sure we want to say that? And > > are we adopting the full semantics attributed by the XML Schema > > spec to xsi:type? What are the implications for broader statements > > about XML Schema constructs in general in RDF if we use it for > > typing literal resources? > > Because the xsi:type plays a much different role than rdf:type. ?? The lexical->data thing in itself proposes to go along DAML. Clean and easy to understand. > Yes, > yes. Yes. Maybe, although all you need for this to go through is to > understand the primitive (and, maybe, the built-in) XML Schema datatypes. > > I'm not aware of any problems with the rest of XML Schema. You should > still be able to use xsd:integer as a class, for example. > [...] > Is RDF, and, certainly > RDF/XML, not part of the World-Wide Web. Is the RDF Core WG not chartered > to ``build upon XML Schema datatypes to the fullest extent practical and > appropriate''? data-typing is to aid processing data and not for changing data - RDF is to decribe not to change something. Or? rs
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 10:45:28 UTC