Re: datatypes and RDF Schema

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 10/09/01

From: Pat Hayes <>
Subject: Re: datatypes and RDF Schema
Date: Mon, 8 Oct 2001 18:57:09 -0500

> BTW, re. your recent rants about communication. This issue is being 
> discussed simultaneously both here and on RDF-core, and I'm sure it 
> would be extremely useful if the discussions could be integrated. 

I do not believe that I can post to that mailing list.  Can I?

> Take a look at the rdfcore email archive this month under 'big 
> issue', I'd be very interested on your (or anyone else's) comments on 
> this stuff, particularly on 

There are lots of possible ways to go with ``literals''.  

One important forcing function, and one that appears to be getting
completely insufficient attention in the RDF Core WG, is

	What does XML/XML Schema do?

This forcing function, and the related,

	What do RDF users do?

were behind some of the decisions made for DAML+OIL datatypes.

If you don't need to abide by either of the above, then there is much less
reason to use the more-complex machinery in DAML+OIL datatypes and in my
recent proposal.

> Pat


PS:  Does anyone know how to elevate this issue to joint RDF/XML/DAML+OIL
consideration?  Is the Semantic Web Coordination Group the right place?

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST