Richard Cyganiak wrote: > > > On 2 Aug 2007, at 16:14, Garret Wilson wrote: >>> On 1 Aug 2007, at 18:32, Garret Wilson wrote: >>>> 3. Even if we prefer to write 123 and "123", why do we need >>>> rdfs:datatype when we can simply use rdf:type set to xsd:Integer? >>> >>> Why do you keep railing against rdf:datatype? It is merely an >>> artifact of the RDF/XML syntax. It does not exist in the RDF abstract >>> syntax (which you call the “RDF model”). >> >> What? If that were true, there would be no such things as typed >> literals in the model, because once you suck RDF/XML or N3 into the >> model and then re-serialize it, you'd just have plain literals again. > > Garret, you say things like “why do we need rdf:datatype” and “death to > rdf:datatype”. rdf:datatype is an XML attribute in the RDF/XML sytnax. > Nothing else. Richard, Garret has been railing against rdf**s**:datatype, not rdf:datatype. Of course, there is no such thing as rdfs:datatype, so I've assumed all along he means rdfs:Datatype, analogous to his other comments on rdfs:Literal. See http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-schema/#ch_datatyp . rdfs:Datatype is, of course, quite distinct from the RDF/XML datatype attribute. LeeReceived on Thursday, 2 August 2007 15:37:26 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Tuesday, 5 July 2022 08:45:02 UTC