Re: comment: "XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL"

Hi frank

thanks for the comments.

I am very busy during May, and will reply in full during June.

Jeremy

Frank Manola wrote:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/ is a useful document, and I 
> hope to have a more complete set of comments later on.  However, I 
> wanted to make one observation (and suggestion) right away concerning 
> material such as Section 5 (The Use of Numeric Types), since the point 
> applies to certain other general "best practices" material as well.
> 
> Section 5 provides generally-useful advice about representing data for 
> engineering and science applications.  I'd like to suggest that in 
> conveying such advice, it should be made clear that the issues described 
> are not necessarily peculiar to the Semantic Web (or Semantic Web 
> languages), but apply generally to the representation of such data (as 
> opposed, for example, to issues that arise specifically when XML Schema 
> datatypes are used in RDF or OWL).  In this case, for example, similar 
> issues would arise in representing engineering data in Java, C++, or 
> other languages (I would agree that such issues assume particular 
> *importance* in the Semantic Web, due to its presumbed increased 
> interoperabilty requirements, but the issues are not peculiar to 
> Semantic Web *technology*).  The motivation for making this distinction 
> is simply to try to forstall comments of the general form "Semantic Web 
> languages have problems representing engineering data" (or whatever the 
> particular issue covered happens to be), and citing SWBP documents (I've 
> already heard comments to this effect about the Duration issue).
> 
> --Frank
>

Received on Wednesday, 4 May 2005 12:14:56 UTC