- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sat, 3 Nov 2001 20:04:31 +0100
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Bria McBride wrote: > > Pat's Proposal: > > pros: o using schema can add datatyping to existing RDF idiom > > cons: o requires change to RDF/XML to explicitly represent datatyping > in the RDF/XML without schema processing > > o does not allow alternative lexical representations of a datatype > for a given property > > feat: o a hexint is a different datatype from a decint. Values of type > hexint are in a different class from those of type decint, though > there could be a common super class Integer. > > Sergey's Proposal: > > pros: o can fully represent datatyping info in current RDF/XML syntax > without schema processing > > o different lexical representations can be used to describe the same > data value > > cons: o requires use of a new idiom to represent datatyped values > > feat: o the lexical representation used must be explicitly coded in the RDF; > it can't be inferred from a schema. I see DanC's message http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0030.html and the thread around that also as a kind of proposal, no? If so, how would you describe it's pros, cons and feat? Thanks Brian. -- Jos
Received on Saturday, 3 November 2001 14:06:20 UTC