- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 13 May 2013 23:20:44 -0500
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Andy has suggested that basic RDF should not have any built-in (required) datatypes, not even xsd:string or rdf:langString, and that all datatypes should be treated alike using the D-interpretation machinery. I peronally like this idea (it just seems neater) but would like us to take a decision on it, as it would need some (easy but) extensive edits to the current semantics draft. To emphasise, the current story is that RDF entailment requires that those two datatypes are recognized, I guess corresponding to the original plain and language-tagged literals which had no type and were therefore built into RDF syntax. Pat On May 13, 2013, at 9:08 PM, David Wood wrote: > Hi all, > > The agenda for Wednesday, 15 May 2013 is available at: > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2013.05.15 > > Please volunteer to scribe. > > Regards, > Dave > -- > http://about.me/david_wood > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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 Tuesday, 14 May 2013 04:21:23 UTC