- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 28 Jan 2002 08:31:05 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 07:35, Patrick Stickler wrote: > On 2002-01-28 15:03, "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 2002-01-28 at 04:53, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > >> If you don't define the datatype, > >> or if your knowledge migrates out of the circle of your > >> control? > > > > I don't know how to make sense of that. > > It's called the global semantic web, where RDF encoded > knowledge is interchanged around the world between disparate > applications. I still don't see how this relates to the design choices at hand in any technical sense. > >> What if I need "30" to mean something else? > > > > I doubt you really need "30" to mean something else. > > Zillions of perl and tcl programmers, for example, > > do just fine with just one kind of literal. > > But, again, perl and tcl have *BUILT IN DATATYPES*. Tcl has one datatype: strings. Perl has one (relevant) datatype: scalars. I suggest that RDF can do likewise. (see S, idiom B, for details). > Sorry for shouting, but I keep having to repeat that > point. It doesn't seem to matter how many times each of us repeats his position; it's pretty clearly not going to convince the other. I think I have said what I have to say. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 28 January 2002 09:31:06 UTC