- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 04 Nov 2002 10:42:49 +0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
At 09:42 AM 11/4/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > I think that trying to define *every* piece of possibly useful vocabulary > > would be a slippery slope for this WG. SO the question becomes: what is > > lost by NOT having rdfs:Datatype in the core RDF(S) specs? > >A reasonable term to base interoperability on. How else will applications >be able to be told that a given URI denotes an RDF compatable datatype? The only concern for *standard RDF* applications is that it denotes the type of a literal, which is now indicated syntactically. My motivation is this: I don't fundamentally oppose the idea of having the term rdfs:Datatype, but I think it's properties may need to be thought through and at this stage of nailing down a standard, I really think we should be focusing on what's really needed and decisions that cannot be deferred. I think the rdfs:Datatype term can be deferred without harm -- i.e. we or someone else can decide to introduce it later. #g ------------------- Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:10:06 UTC