Check out the DCD submission

[Dan Brickley]

On Tue, 11 Aug 1998, Tim Bray wrote:

> At 09:21 AM 8/11/98, Peter Murray-Rust wrote:
> >I am primarily concerned with the basic datatypes section 4. I want to use
> >these (or something like them) in CML, healthcare and so on. I shall
> >extract this subset of the document and re-use the concepts in JUMBO2.
> 
> Not now!  Everyone agrees that we need datatypes.  I expect some cheerful
> & constructive bloodletting in the SIG & WG as to which set of datatypes 
> we need.  Anybody who invests effort in that set at this time is spinning 
> wheels.
> 
> On the other hand, bearing what you say in mind, I think there may be
> a sane case to be made for decoupling the task of identifying the set
> of datatypes from that of defining the rest of the schema mechanics;
> however we end up specifying the datatypes, the heavy typechecking
> coding will be about the same, and it might be nice to give that a
> head-start.


Yes. FWIW the HTTP-NG group has a description of their proposed type
system in their Architectural Model working draft at:
	
	http://www.w3.org/Protocols/HTTP-NG/#Specs

	particularly section 3 of
	http://www.w3.org/TR/WD-HTTP-NG-architecture/
	is relevant to this discussion.

(... RDF itself could do with having a few more interesting types than
String). So separating out the list of types from the mechanics
seems particularly well motivated given that there are possibly three related
W3C activities which could have their own way of representating the
chosen types.


Dan


xml-dev: A list for W3C XML Developers. To post, mailto:xml-dev at ic.ac.uk
Archived as: http://www.lists.ic.ac.uk/hypermail/xml-dev/
To (un)subscribe, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
(un)subscribe xml-dev
To subscribe to the digests, mailto:majordomo at ic.ac.uk the following message;
subscribe xml-dev-digest
List coordinator, Henry Rzepa (mailto:rzepa at ic.ac.uk)