- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 13:10:11 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: ext Martyn Horner <martyn.horner@profium.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 03:18 PM 1/17/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > that 4 follows from 3
>
>I understand 4 to mean (and Graham, please correct me if I'm wrong)
>that we wish to be able to describe the characteristics of lexical
>datatypes in terms of RDF, such as relations between datatypes
>and possibly the nature of their lexical and/or value spaces, rather
>than leaving such issues completely implicit and up to each
>application to provide native support for.
Current text:
[[[
4. Use of schema-defined datatypes
The datatyping proposal should not preclude using schema languages to
define
data types, rather than relying on "built-in" predefined data types.
The proposal is not expected to give an account of any such schema language.
]]]
The meaning that I was trying to capture was much broader than that:
IF one has a schema language that can define datatypes
AND one uses that language to define the characteristics of some datatype
THEN the RDF datatyping scheme should not preclude the use of dada types so
defined.
(This might include an RDF-based schema language for defining data types,
if such an animal were to exist then that might be just one target for this
desiderata, but not the only one.)
#g
--------------------------
__
/\ \ Graham Klyne
/ \ \ (GK@ACM.ORG)
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 08:57:34 UTC