From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider ([email protected])
Date: 10/09/01
From: Pat Hayes <[email protected]>
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