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