- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 17:58:16 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 18:49 08/03/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >Here's my very short list of outstanding issues that I see as >still remaining to be resolved for the stake-in-the-ground datatyping >proposal, with proposed resolutions: Looks like 3 issues to me, not one. >1. Union versus non-union interpretation of datatypes > >Overview of Issue: > >a) XML Schema associates a single URI with a datatype. That > URI denotes the entire datatype, not just its value space. > Stating that the URI only denotes the value space may be > considered contrary to the XML Schema usage and leaves > datatypes without a formally defined URI denoting the entire > datatype. Thats issue 1. Does the WG agree this is a problem. I note that some previous posts used xsdr:decimal for RDF references to schema datatype. >b) The present proposal does not provide any means of using > rdfs:range to constrain the values of datatyped properties > without resulting in the inability to use both global or > local idioms freely and without conflict. Thats issue 2, but I don't know what it means. Test case please. >c) The semantics of rdfs:drange embodies a union interpretation > of datatypes by constraining a property's values to either > a member of the lexical space or a member of the value space. Ok I was wrong, I don't see an issue here. > >Proposed Resolution: Please stick to the process we agreed. Does the WG agree the issue identified is a problem. Please try not to get into lengthy discussion of ways to resolve issues before we have agreed there is a problem to fix. Brian
Received on Monday, 11 March 2002 14:41:13 UTC