- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 22:31:08 +0300
- To: vdv@dyomedea.com, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Brian McBride wrote: > > > One major area of focus for the WG at the moment is > datatyping, e.g. using XML > > schema datatypes in RDF. Now would be a good time to let > us have your thoughts > > and ideas on this. > > > > Brian > > > ... but I think that the mechanism which will > be defined > to bind the datatypes should be generic and extensible enough > to allow > to bind other datatype systems (should any become available)! I think it's great that the WG is focusing on this important issue. However, I agree with Eric here. Even though both RDF and XML Schema are both W3C recommendations, and it is in general "a good thing" for all W3C recommendations to play well together, I am very much opposed to a solution that would discriminate against datatype systems other than XML Schema. Whatever solution is adopted, it must be generic. For my input regarding this issue, and some ideas on how the relationship between qualified anonymous nodes, range defined types, and URI defined types, please see my recent posting: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2001OctDec/0088.html Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 3 356 0209 Senior Research Scientist Mobile: +358 50 483 9453 Nokia Research Center Fax: +358 7180 35409 Visiokatu 1, 33720 Tampere, Finland Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 18 October 2001 15:32:05 UTC