From: Ian Horrocks (horrocks@cs.man.ac.uk)
Date: 01/08/02
On January 8, Peter F. Patel-Schneider writes: > Here is my revised version: Looks good to me. Ian > > > > > 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