- From: dehora <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 14:50:50 +0100
- To: "'W3C Rdfcore'" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Art Barstow: > > Other than the M&S and DAML+OIL's definition of > daml:Collection, are there other groups that have defined > a rdf:parseType? > > Are there any apps that need to define a new parseType > [and are seeking advice from the W3C on how to define a > new type]? > Other than log:Quote, not that I'm aware of (I've asked for feedback on this in rdf-logic and rdf-ig: in fact I was just writing up the response to those lists). I find it more than interesting that when it has occurred, people have used Qname like constructs. Frankly, I'd be surprised if we never see another extension to parseType. I can easily envision people wanting to use parseType to qualify RDF-XML literals with XML Schema simple and complex types, as XML Schema gets used in anger (to me it's a clear point of tangency between RDF and XML Schema). It'd be great to be able to say outright that people can reuse their XML Schema datatypes for XML-RDF literals (imho, expect to see Schema datatyping to become a standard practice in enterprise level middleware). Point being this: if people can use their precanned types, they won't need to define new parseTypes :) Bill
Received on Friday, 14 September 2001 09:52:20 UTC