- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:57:30 -0500
- To: fmanola@mitre.org
- Cc: Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, connolly@w3.org, phayes@ai.uwf.edu, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org> Subject: Re: DATATYPES: mental dump. Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2001 12:29:32 -0500 > Graham Klyne wrote: > > > > At 10:14 PM 11/12/01 +0200, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > >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. > > > > I agree. > > > > My reading of what Peter/Dan have been saying is that XML schema datatypes > > should be primus inter pares for data types in RDF, not somehow embedded in > > the core of RDF. (Which I think is fine.) > > As long as a classical education isn't going to be required in order to > read our specifications :-) On the other hand, I have little sympathy (as far as reading specifications) for people without either a mathematical education or the ability to pick up a small number of not-very-difficult mathematical concepts. [no :-)] After all, it is probably less effort to pick up the mathematical concepts required for simple model theory than to understand a normal ISO specification. [big :-)] peter
Received on Tuesday, 13 November 2001 12:58:24 UTC