W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > January to March 2004

XSCH issues from RDF Core and WebOnt

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 2004 12:11:09 +0000
Message-ID: <4060295D.1050406@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: public-swbp-wg@w3.org


My understanding is that the mission of the XML Schema Datatypes TF is to 
move forward with issues postponed from the two other WGs.

Can we/should we formally ask these groups to hand us the baton on the 
postponed issues:

RDF Core
  hmmm ... well despite there clearly being a postponed issue to do with 
value space equality, I can't find it in the issue list.

WebOnt
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I4.3-Structured-Datatypes

similarly the WebOnt issues list entry for 5.8 Datatypes is somewhat incorrect.


hmmmm ....

My understanding of the postponed issues is that there are two big ones:

1) what is the relationship between the value spaces of XML Schema 
datatypes that are nopt derived from the same primitive type.

Test Case is:

_:a owl:sameAs "0"^^xsd:float .
_:a owl:sameAs "0"^^xsd:int .

trivially true or trivially false.

2) Which URI should one use for a user-defined XML Schema datatype.

(Peter sent a solution to the WebOnt list a long time ago)

3) Complex types (webont issue 4.3)

I note that there is a new Proposed Edited Recommendation for XML Schema 
which I am prepared to review with relationship to these issues above.
But it would be good to have clarity that I could do that, any comments I 
made could be brought to the attention of this WG as the holder of the 
flame on these issues. (A review of a PER is limited to the errata on the 
old REC)


Suggestion: we clarify with the RDF Core and WebOnt groups and/or the 
coordination group that the above three problems remain unsolved. 
Personally, I would like to scope the TF to the first two of these and 
exclude the third. Having done that we should inform XML Schema WG of our 
intention to have this task force and propose that it be a joint TF of both 
WGs, and work with them on the TF description. (For example, I understand 
that they may be interested in producing an RDF Schema for their datatypes)
Received on Tuesday, 23 March 2004 07:11:47 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tuesday, 23 March 2004 07:11:50 EST