W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > January 2010

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

From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:49:11 -0500
To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
Message-ID: <1263998951.23097.26446.camel@dbooth-laptop>
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:20 -0500, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> > 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.

Absolutely.  Otherwise we'd be *adding* complexity rather than removing
it.


-- 
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 14:49:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC