- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 14:06:52 -0400
- To: Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org>
- Cc: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
* Graham Klyne <gk@ninebynine.org> [2003-09-12 18:50+0100] > I'm broadly sympathetic to Jan's comments, but I do wonder where it leaves > the interoperability report if developers choose to implement something > that goes beyond strict RDF. My impression was that a test-case failure is > to be regarded as a serious non-conformance. I suppose we can say > something like: > > _:a eg:prop " 3 "^^xsd:integer . > > does not entail > > _:a eg:prop "3"^^xsd:integer . > > and I'm fine with that, because if an implementation chooses to infer the > second from the first, it's not violating the RDF specification, just > making an inference not required by it. > > In saying this, I have no strong opinion about the handling of whitespace > around XML schema datatypes, and would really prefer to defer to the XML > schema working group on this. Yes, let's hope we can get a good response from them on this... d
Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 14:06:52 UTC