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

Re: details of rdf:datatype?

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 09:13:41 +0300
Message-ID: <006c01c275a4$5700c5f0$544516ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>; "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Sent: 16 October, 2002 19:16
Subject: 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.

Well, if it is based on the presumption that there is a canonical
space defined for every rdfs:Datatype, then it is not addressing
the full breadth of RDF Datatyping and as such will have incomplete

I was simply pointing this out.

But of course, implementors are free to do as they like.

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 02:13:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC