- From: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2013 08:11:08 -0400
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: RDF-WG WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Yeah, I like that a lot. In fact, I tend to conceive datatypes that way against the 2004 specs. Please consider it on the agenda until I get a chance to add it. Regards, Dave On May 14, 2013, at 0:20, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote: > 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 12:11:51 UTC