From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (firstname.lastname@example.org)
From: Pat Hayes <email@example.com> 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 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0076.html. 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 peter 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