- From: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 2 May 2012 17:37:08 +0200
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
I do not see why we would have to do that. These datatypes are obviously useful in RDF and, actually, are used (eg, the microdata->RDF specification recommends using those). OWL and RIF has good reasons not to use them, but that is not binding for RDF imho. Ivan On May 2, 2012, at 17:29 , RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > RDF-ISSUE-87 (Revisit 2004 types): Revisit RDF 2004 datatypes that have proven troublesome in OWL and RIF > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/87 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: > > Some RDF datatypes included in RDF 2004, such as xsd:gYear, have proven troublesome in RIF and OWL due to not being well-behaved w.r.t. ordering. > > Revisit them to decide if anything is to be done about it. > > > ---- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Wednesday, 2 May 2012 15:34:39 UTC