- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 11:49:08 +0300
- To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
C.f. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0166.html http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0001.html [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] ----- Original Message ----- From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org> Sent: 16 October, 2002 10:23 Subject: rdf:datatype v xsi:type > > One of the questions that came up when I talked to webont about datatypes > was why we were using rdf:datatype and not xsi:type. I couldn't remember > the reason at the time, but I do think we need to have one. Can someone > remind me please. > > One that now comes to mind is that xsi:type can take qname values and we > need a URI for the datatype, and the standard namespace ref for xsd: does > not produce the right uri. Also there is the potential for confusion if we > have one attribute that can take qname values and none of the others do. > > Brian >
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 04:49:12 UTC