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

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

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 16:00:58 +0200
Message-ID: <3D53CB1A.5040506@db.stanford.edu>
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
CC: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com, Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

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
>>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 
>>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.

We ran out of time arguing about global/implicit idiom and trying to 
decide between tidy and untidy literals. _These_ are IMO the stumbling 
blocks to be put off until RDF 2.0!

Received on Friday, 9 August 2002 10:01:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:59 UTC