Re: details of rdf:datatype?

At 11:20 16/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:

[...]


>Firstly, one cannot presume that all datatypes define a canonical
>representation for all values and thus that it is possible to obtain
>such a canonical representation, so basing anything on canonical
>representations is simply not feasible. Please stop referring to
>canonical lexical forms. They don't exist in RDF datatyping.

Puzzled frown.  Have I lost the plot here?  It looks to me as though Jos is 
describing an implementation strategy for value based entailments.  As far 
as I'm concerned, that is a relevant contribution.

Brian

Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 14:13:04 UTC