W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 19:00:48 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B5FBA7E@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Sergey Melnik [mailto:melnik@db.stanford.edu]
> Sent: 08 August, 2002 18:22
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com; Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com;
> jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case)
> 
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> 
> > ...
> > Secondly, I was pointing out that XML Schema has untidy
> > semantics with regards to lexical forms of datatype
> > values -- and provides both global and local mechanisms
> > for associating a datatype with that lexical form for
> > interpretation.
> 
> 
> XML Schema is stuck with Unicode strings in the DOM model. 
> RDF abstract 
> model can use other kinds of constants, e.g., binary objects. 
> In fact, 
> the new proposal is more reminiscent to how datatyping is done in 
> programming languages like Java/C rather than XML Schema. For 
> example, 
> in these languages, built-in datatypes like numbers, strings 
> or unicode 
> characters have distinct syntactic representation, i.e., 5, 
> '5', "5", 5d 
> , and (float)5 denote five different things.

Fine. Whatever. Put it on your wish list for RDF 2.0. We're
out of time, and we have already agreed that the stake-in-the-ground
is "it" unless it is demonstrated and agreed to be lacking.

The only issue remaining is to decide between tidy and untidy
literals. Let's decide and wrap up.

>  > ...
> 
> > Some comments on Dan's NTriples examples:
> > 
> > 1. The triple
> > 
> >   :jenny :age 10.
> > 
> > suggests that numerical values are native to RDF (i.e. a
> > new node type) which must be understood by all
> > RDF parsers and applications. RDF has no native
> > datatypes, and I've understood it to be WG
> > consensus that RDF would be datatype and datatype
> > framework neutral.
> 
> 
> RDF defines an abstract syntax (graph) and several concrete syntaxes.
> In the new proposal, the abstract syntax is datatype neutral. The 
> concrete syntaxes do need to worry about the encoding of typed values.

I have yet to see any abstract syntax that is datatype framework
neutral, other than the ones I have suggested myself.

Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 07:47:58 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:25 EDT