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

Re: Review semantics document (2002-12-13#7) - part 1

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:21:44 -0500
Message-ID: <3E11EE48.8020303@mitre.org>
To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Graham Klyne wrote:

> 
snip
> 
> [For discussion]
> Section 0.2, Prefix xsd: namespace:
> Maybe this is OK, but I think it should be checked.  Some time ago, DanC 
> posted a "Get off my lawn" comment -- 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html, 
> pointing out that folks shouldn't define URIs occupying namespaces that 
> are controlled by some other group.
> 
> It's not clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form 
> (e.g.) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal, since the concatenation 
> convention is something introduced by RDF.  Also, the XML schema 
> specification does not introduce a '#' into its namespace.  There has 
> been some discussion about this issue, but I'm not sure that it's fully 
> resolved;  it's not clear to me that the XML schema specs sanction use 
> of (say) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal to denote an RDF 
> datatype.


I'm commenting on this because there've been comments on this before 
concerning other documents (and Primer has similar material).  It seems 
clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form in 
question, because although the concatenation convention may be 
introduced by RDF, the XML Schema datatypes spec (section 3) says 
explicitly "For example, to address the int datatype, the URI is 
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int" (it also explicitly says to 
construct the URIs of datatypes by using the base URI 
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema, and the name of the datatype as a 
fragment identifier).  I'm sure they don't care whether such URIs are 
actually constructed using RDF's concatenation convention, or by some 
other means, but they do say the URIs should be of that form.


> 
> Also, I note that the normative references cite XML schema part 2, but 
> the document one gets by retrieving http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 
> refers to part 1 only.  I think this may be an omission in the document 
> there rather than an error in this specification.
> 


I think there's a misunderstanding here.  if you go to the W3C XML 
Schema page http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema, you'll see that the XML Schema 
specs are published in three parts.  The third part, "XML Schema Part 2: 
Datatypes", has URL http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/, which is the URL 
our documents (including semantics) cite for XML Schema datatypes.  The 
document at http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema supposedly describes the 
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema *namespace*.  However, it's dated 
several months earlier than the actual specs, and it's not clear what 
official status that actual page has.






-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 14:03:39 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:58 EDT