- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2002 14:39:21 +0200
- To: ext Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- CC: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-01-11 14:23, "ext Jan Grant" <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jan 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>
>>>> There can be no native data types in RDF, only a consistent means
>>>> for declaring the data type of a lexical form.
>>>
>>> Actually, the first half of this doesn't have to be true.
>>
>> I don't see how it can't be true, if we are to maintain a generic,
>> portable, implementation-independent means of knowledge interchange.
>
> This is an aside, but it can't be true if somebody (RDF core,
> ferinstance), were to say "these data types (as exemplified by xml
> schema or some other place) are built in to RDF". I'm not claiming any
> merit to such a statement.
Point taken, but to do so would be IMO a crippling decision.
Just as RDF is neutral to ontologies beyond that needed for its
core, RDF should also IMO be neutral with regards to data typing
schemes.
This doesn't mean that folks shouldn't be looking at standardizing
tools and content on common data types, but that RDF should be
insulated from such decisions, so that it can remain static as
the world evolves.
I'm not against XML Schema data types. I use them. I just don't see
them belonging in the core definition of RDF no more so than any
application specific ontology does.
Cheers,
Patrick
--
Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Friday, 11 January 2002 07:38:53 UTC