- From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 5 Sep 2002 10:52:18 +0100 (BST)
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Patrick Stickler wrote: [explanation cut] > Is that any clearer? Your point of view is explicitly clear; however, I don't consider the situation it describes to be "clear". I'll shut up though because I want to hear what others have to say on this. > > > ... which is why I suggested Datatype is a superfluous extension > > (particularly since it seems that all literals should carry a type, but > > I don't wish to descend into "dogmatic assertions" here :-) ) > > I agree fully that all literals should carry a type, explicit or implicit, > and this is the untidy view. Or rather, to avoid an untidy treatment, > we'd the need to disallow inlined literals entirely, making all literals > typed literal nodes. Yes, I like two of the the options you outlined in the appendixes for treatment of inline literals - either pick a "default" type (which is ugly but easy) or use the untidy "mutable type" option, which I find quite compelling, although I confess I've not looked closely at technical consequences. -- jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/ Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/ Semantic rules, OK?
Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 05:54:37 UTC