 |
 |
>>>Mikael Nilsson said: > LOM currently uses the rdf:value approach, but we're considering moving > to using rdf datatypes for most cases, mostly because they are simply > much more easy to manage, while no information gets lost. It makes it > possible to avoid using two different graph layouts in differenct uses > of the same property, which is *very* helpful. With my RDF Core WG membership hat on - thanks, that's useful feedback. I personally thought it was appropriate (if not perfect - long story) for DC datatypes and will be using it myself since pretty much all RDF applications are DC ones. > It's currently not clear what DC is going to do, however, so we don't > know how to be compatible :-( > > I am supposing that DC will move to using rdf datatypes for encoding > schemes in the "long" run, though. With DC Arch membership hat now. The DCMI is considering what to do about this. At the DC Architecture group meeting at DC2002 in Florence, the people in the room had consensus that RDF datatypes were likely appropriate for encoding schemes - or at least some of them. I think those present in Florence who also email here, who expressed an opinion or concurred included: Tom Baker, Dan Brickley, Rachel Heery, Pete Johnston(?), Eric Miller, Andy Powell, Harry Wagner as well as myself. Some notes on the event from the SWAD Europe side are at http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/Europe/reports/initial_workshop_report/Overview.html This hasn't yet been represented in public document changes but there is some work going on with respect to the schema as this thread announced. There are still some open issues. Dave