- From: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2004 15:39:49 -0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
On Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:08 PM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > I have done a first pass at a note, > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/xsh-sw-note.html > this is very rough and ready but shows the sort of ground I would like > to cover. > I hope to polish it a little tomorrow getting some of the links into place. > I'm hoping that during the F2F we can identify what is missing, and then > post F2F to get it up to publishable quality. Here are a few comments/suggestions on the current draft. As the current draft is mainly a rough outline, the wording "... is unclear" in the following comments should be read as suggestions for further versions of the draft. 1) User defined datatypes: - We should provide more details on why the DAML+OIL solution is a non-standard approach to fragID and why the id solution is only partially endorsed by RFC XMLMIMETYPE. - Example: we can modify the datatype name "foo" as "adultAge" if we replace 1700 with 18. 2) Comparison of values - We should present the current XML Schema solution before the three "new" solutions. Furthermore, we should compare RDF datatypes with XML Schema datatypes in order to make the situation clear. - The motivation of the "all primitive types different" solution is unclear. - It is not clear how the XPath 2.0 eq operator solve the problem. - We should provide a section about DL reasoning and datatypes, and then discuss its relations with the three "new" solutions. Greetings, Jeff -- Jeff Z. Pan ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ ) School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester > Jeremy > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:39:51 UTC