draft RDF datatyping response

From: Mike Dean (mdean@bbn.com)
Date: 01/08/02

This is a draft response from the Joint Committee to the RDF
Core Working Group regarding datatyping.  We can discuss
this during the Jan 8 telecon.

One of the dimensions by which one can categorize datatyping
proposals is by whether individual values are explicitly or
implicitly typed, e.g. whether each occurrence needs to
specify xsd:integer (explicit) or whether xsd:integer is
specified as the rdfs:range of the property (implicit).

We believe that RDF should allow users to choose either
approach, and have adopted this approach in DAML+OIL.
Allowing the user to specify rdfs:range (with or without an
explicit value type) allows for validation; allowing the
user to specify both allows for consistency checking; not
requiring an explicit value type promotes consistency with
current use of XML DTDs and XML Schema.  We encourage the
RDF Core Working Group to also allow both explicit and/or
implicit typing, and believe this approach to be compatible
with several of the current datatyping proposals.


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