Re: questions about rdfs:Datatype [Was: RE: Seeking normative definition of datatyping]

> From phayes@ai.uwf.edu Fri Dec  6 00:13 MET 2002
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> X-Sender: phayes@mail.coginst.uwf.edu
> Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 17:13:46 -0600
> To: Roland Schwaenzl <Roland.Schwaenzl@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
> From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> Subject: Re: questions about rdfs:Datatype [Was: RE: Seeking normative    
>     definition of datatyping]
> Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> 
> >  > From phayes@ai.uwf.edu Thu Dec  5 18:05 MET 2002
> >>  Mime-Version: 1.0
> >>  X-Sender: phayes@mail.coginst.uwf.edu
> >>  Date: Thu, 5 Dec 2002 11:05:24 -0600
> >>  To: Roland Schwaenzl <roland@mathematik.uni-osnabrueck.de>
> >>  From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
> >>  Subject: Re: questions about rdfs:Datatype [Was: RE: Seeking normative   
> >>     definition of datatyping]
> >>  Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
> >>
> >>
> >>  representing a decimal by its canonical form with all irrelevant
> >>  zeros suppressed. Whenever there is such a canonical lexical form,
> >>  restricting the rules so as to generate only that canonical form will
> >>  always find identities in at most two steps.
> >
> >That one would be allowed to do...so why not suggest
> >to procede that way (at least) in the xsd primitive case in RDF Sema?
> 
> Well, some WG members prefer to not mention canonical DTs at all. 

Well, discussing a special case doesn't make the case "canonical".

Isn't XMLSchema a recommendation from the same organization developing RDF?

rs


> But 
> yes, I think that a sentence or two might be helpful, particularly as 
> this is marked informative.
> 
> >
> >[By the way: Why RDF Sema stresses "primitive" as opposed to "built in"?]
> 
> That is just an editing bug, will fix.
> 
> Pat
> --

Received on Friday, 6 December 2002 06:13:58 UTC