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

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