W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > November 2004

Re: [XSCH] possible note skectch

From: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:46:19 -0000
Message-ID: <014c01c4d3a5$3ba1caa0$afc15882@Newton>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy,

> Thanks Jeff,
> 
> can I suggest:
> 
> I concentrate on getting the value side nearer finished, and then you 
> add a new subsection on the DL reasoning side of things. I think that is 
> important but distinctly more in your domain of expertise than mine.

Sure, no problem. I assume we will put the DL reasoning section at the end of the draft. Please tell me where do I upload the section and when will be the deadline of it. 


> I had a further thought that it would be worth having a new short 
> section on duration during the readers attention to the fact that F&O 
> (??? or is it some other XSLT/XQuery WD) does solve the problems with 
> duration by replacing it with yearMonthDuration and hourMinuteSecond 
> duration (or something like that). This is another leftover from the 
> recommendation round.

Very interesting. Do you have any links about the solution of F&O?

Greetings,
Jeff

--
Dr. Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester


> Jeremy
> 
> 
> Jeff Pan wrote:
>> 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 Friday, 26 November 2004 10:46:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:09:40 UTC