- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 10:51:37 -0600
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Cc: 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. Well, just so long as they are not actually surreal. I guess dada is OK, but I draw the line at melting watches. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 11:50:20 UTC