- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2011 07:39:51 -0600
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I have no objections, with the slight caveat that Im not sure we might not want to make some changes to the notion of 'datatype map', which was invented purely as a last-minute fix to make the semantics make sense, and might need a more careful examination, and the semantics might be relevant when we do. Sorry about delay in replying, have been off-internet for a while. Pat On Nov 9, 2011, at 7:00 PM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > Hi Pat, hi Peter, > > I have an action to ask you whether you have any objections to moving the following items from RDF Semantics to RDF Concepts (while changing normative references between the specs as appropriate): > > * the definition of “datatype map” > * the definition of the XSD datatype map > * the list of suitable XSD datatypes > * the paragraph that explains why some types are unsuitable > > The rationale is that > > a) the concept of a datatype map would be rather helpful to tie down a few loose ends in RDF Concepts, > b) implementation guidance like that provided by the XSD type list is more at home in RDF Concepts, > c) the details of all built-in datatypes (rdf:XMLLiteral and xsd:xxx) would then be defined in the same place. > > Any objections? > > Best, > Richard ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Friday, 18 November 2011 13:40:39 UTC