RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

Date: 11/30/01

> > Well, if that's how the union data type is defined to work, then
> > it's not technically a problem -- i.e. there really is no actual
> > ambiguity in the mapping -- but it would still IMO be a very 
> > odd data type ;-)
> Sure, you may consider it to be odd, but it is a valid data 
> type, and it
> does cause problems for many of the datatype schemes.

Fair enough. I don't think, though, that it's a problem
for the PDU approach. If extra XML Schema mechanisms are
available for interpeting XML Schema typed literals, fine,
use them, but I don't think RDF should necessarily have to
know about them or that data types in general must be
defined using XML Schema mechanisms.

I still take the view that we should fully support XML
Schema data types as well as any data types, but that
RDF remains neutral to data typing scheme.



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