Re: draft RDF datatyping response

From: Ian Horrocks (
Date: 01/08/02

On January 8, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes:
> Here is my revised version:

Looks good to me.


> Whatever datatyping facilities are selected by the RDF Core Working Group,
> it is the opinion of the Joint Committee that the primary criterion for RDF
> datatyping facilities should be compatibility with existing XML and XML
> Schema datatyping facilities.
> 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.  The use of implicit
> typing allows for compatibility with existing RDF data and much XML data.
> The use of both implicit and explicit typing allows for an extra check on
> the appropriateness of input.  The use of explicit typing allows for direct
> control of the typing of data.  We encourage the RDF Core Working Group to
> also allow both explicit and 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