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

RE: RDFCore Update

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:31:08 +0300
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C032@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: vdv@dyomedea.com, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> > One major area of focus for the WG at the moment is 
> datatyping, e.g. using XML 
> > schema datatypes in RDF.  Now would be a good time to let 
> us have your thoughts 
> > and ideas on this.
> > 
> > Brian
> 
> 
> ... but I think that the mechanism which will 
> be defined 
> to bind the datatypes should be generic and extensible enough 
> to allow 
> to bind other datatype systems (should any become available)!

I think it's great that the WG is focusing on this important
issue.

However, I agree with Eric here. Even though both RDF and XML Schema
are both W3C recommendations, and it is in general "a good thing" for
all W3C recommendations to play well together, I am very much
opposed to a solution that would discriminate against datatype
systems other than XML Schema. Whatever solution is adopted, it
must be generic.

For my input regarding this issue, and some ideas on how the 
relationship between qualified anonymous nodes, range
defined types, and URI defined types, please see my recent
posting:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0088.html

Cheers,

Patrick

--
Patrick Stickler                      Phone:  +358 3 356 0209
Senior Research Scientist             Mobile: +358 50 483 9453
Nokia Research Center                 Fax:    +358 7180 35409
Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland   Email:  patrick.stickler@nokia.com
 
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 15:32:05 GMT

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