- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Mon, 3 Dec 2001 18:43:55 -0500
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > That's all well and good, but RDF while depending on XML Namespaces due to > its dependency on XML does not explicitly agree or disagree with this > draconian position. My point in raising this (well known) example is simply to point out the fact that one cannot blindly leverage other specifications even when they are close to what one desires. It seems to be commonly accepted that RDF datatypes ought at least use the simple XML Schema datatypes such as "xsd:integer" etc. It seems like the politically correct thing to do in order to promote harmony and world peace. I submit that it is generally easy to define such simple datatypes and unless the issues between RDF and XML are cleared up, namely that unless the XML Schema formalism is itself incorporated (somehow) into the RDF DT model, that "xsd:integer" ought be reserved for "integer defined according to XML Schema 1.0", and that perhaps "rdf-dt:integer" would be more appropriate. Jonathan
Received on Monday, 3 December 2001 18:45:23 UTC