- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 16:02:44 -0800
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham, in "2. Use of XML-schema datatypes", you talk about derived types. I think derived types are out of scope. In order to specify how a type is restricted, special vocabulary would be required, and this is explicitly off our charter... I also think that (1) somehow goes together with (9). In your examples, Idiom B seems notationally equivalent to Idiom C. Of course, the difference is in what exB:date and exC:date represent. BTW, I added the third idiom as Idiom P to the datatyping document (Idiom D in yours). I don't mind renaming it to something else... Sergey Graham Klyne wrote: > > Some small changes this time: > > - noted item 7 seems to duplicate 5/6 (not 4/5) > > - added a little more explanatory text in the section on idioms > > - presented all idioms using triples > > - re-labelled the idioms A, B, C and D to reduce confusion about their > being specific to proposals (but still acknowledging their origin in > proposals). > > #g
Received on Friday, 18 January 2002 18:32:46 UTC