From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
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. Cheers, Patrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST