- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2001 08:11:59 -0400 (EDT)
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- cc: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <devon@taller.pscl.cwru.edu>, <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Fri, 19 Oct 2001, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > I suggest that the RDF Core WG is not chartered to do any datatyping. My > concerns about datatyping with respect to the WG all center around the fact > that the way the WG was proceeding was precluding reasonable datatyping > schemes. > > Peter F. Patel-Schneider http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter [[ The RDF Core WG is chartered to complete the work on RDF vocabulary description present in the RDF Schema Candidate Recommendation. [...] RDF Schema must be expressed in terms of the RDF model, and must use W3C RDF syntax. RDF Schema must use and build upon XML Schema datatypes to the fullest extent that is practical and appropriate. Specifically, the RDF Core Working Group is not chartered to develop a separate data typing language that duplicates facilities provided by XML Schema data types. ]] The charter leaves us a certain amount of flexibility. Making sure that an XML-friendly RDF representation of datatypes is possible using RDF Schema or its extensions (eg. Web Ontology work) is clearly a duty of this WG. How much of the detailed work on RDF datatyping actually gets done within RDF Core isn't rigidly specified by the charter. The old RDF Schema spec handwaves pretty badly on this, since XML Schema didn't really exist back then. We're now in a position to do a tighter job. For my part, I've been absent from much of the RDF Core discussions for a month or so, and am this week trying to digest the various lengthy discussions on Literals etc. and understand how they relate to the options for datatyping in RDF Schema... Dan -- mailto:danbri@w3.org http://www.w3.org/People/DanBri/
Received on Friday, 19 October 2001 08:12:07 UTC