- From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
- Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2002 09:27:45 +0000
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 04:02 PM 1/18/02 -0800, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>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...
Er... I think the intent was to be able to *use* them, not to specify
them. Personally, I'd prefer to start with the primitive types and then
move on to derived types, but other views were expressed.
I think that if we remember these are desiderata, not requirements, it's
OK. These are points for consideration/evaluation of proposals, not
must-haves.
>I also think that (1) somehow goes together with (9).
Yes... (9) addresses an aspect of backward compatibility. My intituion
for now is to keep them as separate items, so that we're reminded to look
for other compatibility issues.
>In your examples, Idiom B seems notationally equivalent to Idiom C. Of
>course, the difference is in what exB:date and exC:date represent.
Yes... I'm feeling inclined to remove the example and just keep the
placeholder with a reference to B.
>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...
That might be confusing .. my idiom 'C' used to be called 'P'.
#g
--------------------------
__
/\ \ Graham Klyne
/ \ \ (GK@ACM.ORG)
/ /\ \ \
/ / /\ \ \
/ / /__\_\ \
/ / /________\
\/___________/
Received on Monday, 21 January 2002 04:43:02 UTC