- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: 2003年5月29日 08:47:48 -0400 (EDT)
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
- Message-Id: <20030529.084748.46847021.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> Subject: [closed] pfps-01 Date: 2003年5月28日 21:38:41 -0500 > Peter, > re. your comment > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2003JanMar/0094.html > archived as pfps-01: > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#pfps-01 > The WG has decided to accept this comment > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003May/0199.html > The wording of the relevant section 3.4 has been altered in the latest draft > http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/TR/WD-rdf-mt-20030117/#dtype_interp > to read > "The datatype map which also contains the set of all pairs of the > form <http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# sss ,sss >, where sss is a > built-in datatype that has well-defined lexical and value > spaces and a lexical-to-value mapping and is named sss in XML > Schema Part 2: Datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2 ], eg decimal ,string , is > referred to here as XSD. " > > Please reply to this message, copying www-rdf-comments@w3.org, to > indicate if this respoonse to your comment is satisfactory. > > PatHayes I do not view this resolution as satisfactory. In my view the RDF documents should explicitly list those XML Schema datatypes that are suitable, much as the OWL documents do. In fact, the OWL documents should defer to RDF in this matter. Peter F. Patel-Schneider Bell Labs Research Lucent Technologies
Received on Thursday, 29 May 2003 08:48:03 UTC