- 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>
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.
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter
[[
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.
Dan
>
> 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