W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: rdfs:Datatype question

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 13:21:30 +0200
Message-ID: <00e901c283f4$530b65f0$399316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
Cc: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext pat hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>
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>
Sent: 04 November, 2002 12:42
Subject: Re: rdfs:Datatype question

> 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.

But it already *is* defined. It is simply a name for what RDF datatypes are.

Received on Monday, 4 November 2002 06:21:49 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC