- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sat, 1 Dec 2001 13:14:48 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
- Cc: ashokma@microsoft.com, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider > [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] > Sent: 30 November, 2001 13:08 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere) > Cc: ashokma@microsoft.com; www-rdf-interest@w3.org; > joint-committee@daml.org > Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot > > > OK. Lets see how PDU handles various inputs. > > Where is the definition of PDU? When I get it, I'll try to > come up with > some example inputs and how I think PDU behaves on them. > > peter PDU is defined in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0579.html The recently adopted short acryonym PDU is not mentioned there, but that's the most complete definition of the PDU approach and it is what I mean when I refer to PDU. Note that PDU is not new. In fact, its just the combination of the P proposal, the DAML idiom (viewed as a minor modification of the DC proposal), and the U idiom (URVs) as synonymous idioms defining the pairing of lexical form and data type -- and is also future compatible with the P++ proposal as noted in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0637.html Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com > > > > > From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com > Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot > Date: Fri, 30 Nov 2001 19:53:07 +0200 > > > > > Well, if that's how the union data type is defined to work, then > > > > it's not technically a problem -- i.e. there really is no actual > > > > ambiguity in the mapping -- but it would still IMO be a very > > > > odd data type ;-) > > > > > > Sure, you may consider it to be odd, but it is a valid data > > > type, and it > > > does cause problems for many of the datatype schemes. > > > > Fair enough. I don't think, though, that it's a problem > > for the PDU approach. If extra XML Schema mechanisms are > > available for interpeting XML Schema typed literals, fine, > > use them, but I don't think RDF should necessarily have to > > know about them or that data types in general must be > > defined using XML Schema mechanisms. > > > > I still take the view that we should fully support XML > > Schema data types as well as any data types, but that > > RDF remains neutral to data typing scheme. > > > > Cheers, > > > > Patrick >
Received on Saturday, 1 December 2001 06:15:03 UTC