W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: DATATYPES: mental dump.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 15:57:58 -0500 (EST)
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: <connolly@w3.org>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0111121551230.26222-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Mon, 12 Nov 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

> > I agree that RDF should use the XML Schema datatypes... i.e.
> > the value spaces and corresponding lexical representations.
> Please, NO!

Now I'm confused. If you read and agreed with our WG's charter before
joining RDF Core, this should come as no suprise.


    RDF Schema must be expressed in terms of the RDF model, and
    must use W3C RDF syntax. RDF Schema must use and build upon XML
    Schema datatypes to the fullest extent that is practical and
    appropriate. 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.

> It's one thing for RDF based *applications* to support and
> utilized XML Schema simple data types and their lexical and
> value spaces, but IMO RDF should itself be completely neutral
> to any particular data type scheme.

We have a layered design. At some point we'll call out a set of datatypes;
these will be based on the XML Schema work. It may be that the design we
adopt will allow others to plug in something similar. That would probably
be wise, since the XML Schema datatypes themselves may evolve too.


> What we need is to ensure that all data type information for
> typed literals is defined in a consistent and explicit fashion
> and that such information remains persistent and valid until
> passed to an application outside of the RDF scope.
> Regards,
> Patrick
Received on Monday, 12 November 2001 15:58:15 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:06 UTC