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

I think the interesting and practical work here would be to specify and
demonstrate how to use Interpretation Properties in a way that is 100%
compatible with RDF as specified.  I think that's the only way to move
forward with this kind of work.

     -- Sandro