RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

> > Well, if that's how the union data type is defined to work, then
> > it's not technically a problem -- i.e. there really is no actual
> > ambiguity in the mapping -- but it would still IMO be a very 
> > odd data type ;-)
> 
> Sure, you may consider it to be odd, but it is a valid data 
> type, and it
> does cause problems for many of the datatype schemes.

Fair enough. I don't think, though, that it's a problem
for the PDU approach. If extra XML Schema mechanisms are
available for interpeting XML Schema typed literals, fine,
use them, but I don't think RDF should necessarily have to
know about them or that data types in general must be
defined using XML Schema mechanisms.

I still take the view that we should fully support XML
Schema data types as well as any data types, but that
RDF remains neutral to data typing scheme.

Cheers,

Patrick