- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Dec 2002 11:37:15 +0200
- To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org> To: "pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>; <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: 15 December, 2002 13:31 Subject: Re: checked RDF semantics for XSD stuff, couldn't grok namespace entailment > > At 01:31 AM 12/14/02 -0600, pat hayes wrote: > >>I sure wish we had specified that > >> > >> _:fourtyTwo xsd:integer "42". > >> > >>works. Bummer. Rats. Frap. > > > >Yeh, I tend to agree that would have been harmless and useful. Im still > >not sure how we lost that, to tell you the truth. It seems to have just > >got dropped and we were in too much of a hurry to pick it up again. > > Yeah... seems that way. I think the motivation was to define as few possible ways to say the same thing in the interest of efficient interchange. We already have a way to explicitly express a datatype value. We don't need two "official" ways to do the same thing. That, of course, does not prevent anyone from using datatyping properties as a proprietary methodology... Patrick
Received on Monday, 16 December 2002 04:41:59 UTC