RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

> 
> No.  I'm proposing that the end result be much more like
> 
> 	s --p--> xsd:du:x

puuh! Hiding semantics in ascii-art. 


> 
> > Though, why use xsi:type rather than rdf:type? Are we saying
> > that a typed literal resource is a different kind of resource
> > than a typed non-literal resource, and hence the typing is
> > declared differently? Are we sure we want to say that? And
> > are we adopting the full semantics attributed by the XML Schema
> > spec to xsi:type? What are the implications for broader statements
> > about XML Schema constructs in general in RDF if we use it for
> > typing literal resources?
> 
> Because the xsi:type plays a much different role than rdf:type.  

?? The lexical->data thing in itself proposes to go along DAML. 
   Clean and easy to understand.


> Yes,
> yes. Yes.  Maybe, although all you need for this to go through is to
> understand the primitive (and, maybe, the built-in) XML Schema datatypes.
> 
> I'm not aware of any problems with the rest of XML Schema.  You should
> still be able to use xsd:integer as a class, for example.
> 
[...]


> Is RDF, and, certainly
> RDF/XML, not part of the World-Wide Web.  Is the RDF Core WG not chartered
> to ``build upon XML Schema datatypes to the fullest extent practical and
> appropriate''?  

data-typing is to aid processing data and not for changing data - 
RDF is to decribe not to change something. 

Or?

rs