- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 19:37:12 +0200
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, melnik@db.stanford.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 06 November, 2001 19:01 > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere); melnik@db.stanford.edu > Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: datatypes and MT > > > > > Sergey: > > > > > > <complex realDecimal="1.0" imaginaryDecimal="2.0"/> > > > > > > as in > > > > > > _x rdf:type complex > > > _x realDecimal "1.0" > > > _x imaginaryDecimal "2.0" > > > > > > > > [... snip ...] > Patrick: > > > > Right. Such as <complex>1.0/2.0</complex>, eh? > > > > Charter: > [[[ > Specifically, the RDF Core Working Group is not chartered to develop a > separate data typing language that duplicates facilities > provided by XML > Schema data types > ]]] > > XML Schema provides a mechanism for defining complex hence we > MUST use that. Fair enough, though XML Schema provides no complex data type. So we'd have to go with something like _x rdf:type complex _x realComponent [ rdf:value "1.0"; rdf:type xsd:decimal ] . _x imaginaryComponent [ rdf:value "2.0"; rdf:type xsd:decimal ] . Since XML Schema only provides for xsd:decimal. Right? Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 12:37:09 UTC