RE: Merge @type and @datatype

> I am not worried by the implementation issues but... my mind may be too
> rdf infested:-) and this merge may be a bit confusing. I am a bit
> afraid that people will then use datatypes as types for subjects or
> other types for literals. Which may create a mess.
> Ivan

Do you really think so? I think it's more difficult to teach people to
remember what to use when and why there are two keywords for just specifying
the datatype of something. Even if we have two keywords for it it won't
change anything as people still have to understand the difference. It just
adds unnecessary complexity IMHO.

> >> So I would like to propose to merge @datatype and @type to @type
> (ISSUE-31).
> >> I think this won't cause any problems in the already implemented
> algorithms
> >> and just require a change from @datatype to @type. The reason behind
> this is
> >> that both, @type and @datatype, specify the "data type" of a
> construct, the
> >> only difference is that the one addresses subjects while the other
> addresses
> >> objects.
> >
> > That logic makes sense to me. +1

Great :-)

Markus Lanthaler

Received on Sunday, 2 October 2011 20:38:59 UTC