W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-comments@w3.org > September 2012

Re: Use of XSD namespace in RDF recommendations

From: Richard Smith <richard@ex-parrot.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 13:56:46 +0100 (BST)
To: Dan Brickley <danbri@danbri.org>
cc: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>, public-rdf-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <alpine.LRH.2.02.1209041350060.7484@sphinx.mythic-beasts.com>
Dan Brickley wrote:

>>> As far as I know, we have no evidence, and no reason to believe, that this
>>> is a common confusion.
>>
>>
>> Probably not in the form I gave.  But the much the same problem manifests in
>> a second manner that I hadn't considered when I sent the earlier email.  I
>> think this is more serious.
>>
>> The implication of section 5 of the RDF 1.1 Concepts draft is that it should
>> be possible to use suitable types from third-party XML Schemas.  A real
>> example: English counties have a three-letter abbreviation known as a
>> Chapman code, and I can define an XML Schema type to represent them. E.g.
>>
>>   <xs:schema xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"
>>              targetNamespace="http://www.example.com/geo">
>>     <xs:simpleType name="chapman-code">
>>       <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>>         <!-- I could enumerate them or use a pattern -->
>>       </xs:restriction>
>>     <xs:simpleType>
>>   </xs:schema>
>>
>> If I want to use this type in RDF, what is its datatype URI? The RDF 1.1
>> Concepts draft is silent on the issue.  By comparison with XML Schema, we
>> might infer that it should be
>>
>>   http://www.example.com/geo#chapman-code
>>
>> But nothing in the Concepts draft says we should add a '#' in this way.  And
>> I am aware of nothing in the XML Schema recommendations that defines the
>> notion of a datatype URI for a schema type.
>
> Just FWIW, this old-ish Note discusses that issue:
> http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/

Thanks.  I hadn't found that.  In that case, I think my 
comment reduces simply to a suggestion that section 5 of the 
Concepts draft should perhaps reference this, 
non-normatively if group notes are not allowed to be 
normatively referenced.  It explains why the '#' is required 
in the XML Schema case, and also discusses the possibilities 
for other schemas such as my example above.

Richard
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:56:30 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:29:54 UTC