- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 09 Dec 2002 22:21:29 -0600
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-12-09 at 18:35, pat hayes wrote: > > >I'm not comfortable with the SHOULD in > > > >"A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at > >least the rdfs:XMLLiteral datatype and the set of all the XML > >Schema primitive datatypes." > > > >insofar as XML Schema datatypes are concerned. > > > >I think the SHOULD should only be limited to rdfs:XMLLiteral. > > > >I don't believe this is an editorial issue. I don't believe that the > >WG has agreed that this expectation should be placed on datatype > >savvy applications. > > > >I propose the following rewording: > > > >"A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at > >least the rdfs:XMLLiteral datatype. It MAY, and typically will, > >recognize other datatypes, > >such as the XML Schema built-in simple datatypes." > > On reflection, I don't think we should shilly-shally with 'typically' > when using this strict language, so Ive simplified this to: > > A 'datatype-aware' RDF engine SHOULD be competent to recognize at > least the built-in rdf:XMLLiteral datatype. It MAY also recognize the > set of all the XML Schema built-in datatypes. > > > OK?? no; 'RDF engine' seems completely out of place. Please strike all mentions of it. I still owe review of this stuff, but that's the short of it. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 9 December 2002 23:21:21 UTC