- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2001 08:50:21 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- CC: champin@bat710.univ-lyon1.fr, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org
Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: [...] > The way I currently do qualified values is to employ an explicit > 'qualified value' class x:QValue for which the following > constraints/characteristics are defined: [...] > Anyone else think this would be a good idea to pursue? Yes, I prefer something like that too... in particular, see: Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL proposal Jan 2001 http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24 But it's hard to say this is a clarification of RDF 1.0... i.e. it's hard to say that implementors of RDF 1.0 should have implemented it this way. [why the crosspost, by the way?] -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 27 September 2001 09:50:26 UTC