- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 22:10:10 +0200
- To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, connolly@w3.org
- Cc: phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> If there is no reasonable implementation of XML Schema, then > it might be > necessary to produce a stopgap solution that incorporates only the > primitive datatypes, but this should be compatible with a complete > solution. I'm concerned with terms such as "incorporates" such that we would be defining an explicit, official data type scheme for RDF which all data type schemes are mapped to. I would be very wary of any solution which did not work equally well for non-XML Schema data type schemes as it does for XML Schema data type schemes. Surely we want to keep a light coupling (if any at all) between RDF and XML Schema. It's one thing to support XML Schema data types. It's another to require them. Eh? Or am I reading too much into such statements...? Patrick
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 15:10:27 UTC