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

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 13:08:27 -0500
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: ashokma@microsoft.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
Message-Id: <20011130130827J.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
OK.  Lets see how PDU handles various inputs.

Where is the definition of PDU?  When I get it, I'll try to come up with
some example inputs and how I think PDU behaves on them.

peter





From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:53:07 +0200

> > > Well, if that's how the union data type is defined to work, then
> > > it's not technically a problem -- i.e. there really is no actual
> > > ambiguity in the mapping -- but it would still IMO be a very 
> > > odd data type ;-)
> > 
> > Sure, you may consider it to be odd, but it is a valid data 
> > type, and it
> > does cause problems for many of the datatype schemes.
> 
> Fair enough. I don't think, though, that it's a problem
> for the PDU approach. If extra XML Schema mechanisms are
> available for interpeting XML Schema typed literals, fine,
> use them, but I don't think RDF should necessarily have to
> know about them or that data types in general must be
> defined using XML Schema mechanisms.
> 
> I still take the view that we should fully support XML
> Schema data types as well as any data types, but that
> RDF remains neutral to data typing scheme.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick
Received on Friday, 30 November 2001 13:08:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT