SEM: RE: parseType="daml:list" doesn't cut it

At 10:42 AM +0000 3/5/02, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
>I think there are three issues here and I would like to separate them:
>1: was rdf:parseType="daml:collection" a good idea? Does it need blessing?
>2: how does rdf:parseType="Literal" interact with RDF and OWL?
>3: is rdf:parseType="foobar" a sensible extensibility mechanism which OWL
>can live with.

Jeremy/Jonathan (et al) -
  For the sake of the WebOnt Wkg Group, many of whom haven't been as 
involved in RDF development as you, could you provide some pointers 
to things like rdf:parsetype and etc, and help us understand which is 
in RDF as accepted by the W3C (original rec), which are newer things 
under consideration by RDF Core, etc.  I'm not really aiming this at 
the message above, but generally as this layering and RDF stuff goes 
forward, it is hard for some of us to follow -

Prof James Hendler
Dept of Computer Science
AV Williams Bldg				301-405-2696 (work)
Univ of Maryland				301-405-6707 (Fax)
College Park, MD 20853 USA

Received on Tuesday, 5 March 2002 09:58:10 UTC