Re: datatypes and RDF Schema

From: Pat Hayes (
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?

But you can read it and I can post to it :-)

>>  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?

For the nonce, why don't I just CC these messages to the WG until 
they tell me to stop. Hence the cross-posting, guys.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax

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