Re: Datatyping (was: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0")

On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:14 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote:
> One of the things I failed to realize in time to 
> put my weight behind it was that an approach to datatyping based on 
> interpretation properties, which was proposed by Dan Connolly, could be as 
> convenient to use, if not more so, than the current datatyping scheme, and would 
> keep the core of RDF very much simpler.  

I agree.  The interpretation properties[1] approach is very general,
clean and logical.  If it feels inconvenient, that seems to me like an
argument for syntactic sugar rather than a different approach.

1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html


-- 
David Booth, Ph.D.
Cleveland Clinic (contractor)

Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.

Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 14:05:29 UTC