Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]

I would prefer to see standardization of particular datatypes
be done at the API level, not the language level. RDF should
be datatype agnostic. The fact that e.g XML Schema defines
a standardized set of datatypes which can serve as a basis
for interoperability is how it should work, and that does not
e.g. prohibit other standards such as UAProf, to take a real
world example, from defining their own datatypes which are
not all derivable from XML Schema datatypes.

Patrick

[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>; "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 02 November, 2002 00:31
Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2002-10-18]


> 
> I think fixed in this case means "a small number extended by standards body
> work",
> rather than 'anyone can make a new one".  Interoperability at the atomic
> datatype
> level is important.  But maybe I am being near-sighted.  In languages like
> python
> it is important to have a very well-defined common set of atomic datatypes,
> but the again the ability to make new ones is rather neat.
> 
> I guess I could imagine the implementations of code for integer, real,
> floating point
> and rational arithmetic being handled as optimizations.
> 
> Tim
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
> To: "Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
> Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "Tim Berners-Lee" <timbl@w3.org>
> Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 4:58 AM
> Subject: Re: n-triples for datatype values [was: Agenda for RDFCore WG
> Telecon 2002-10-18]
> 
> 
> > At 01:31 AM 11/1/02 +0100, Jos De_Roo wrote:
> > > > I feel that "^^", being syntactic, should only be usable with a
> > > > fixed set of type URIs.
> > >
> > >that's indeed better
> >
> > I have a concern with that.  For example rational values as described in
> > CC/PP.  I'm rather concerned that the type system would be closed.
> >
> > [later]
> >
> > Or does "fixed" in this context mean non-variable?  I have no problem with
> > that.
> >
> > #g
> >
> >
> > -------------------
> > Graham Klyne
> > <GK@NineByNine.org>
> >
>

Received on Saturday, 2 November 2002 06:03:32 UTC