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

Re: A very short list of residual datatyping issues (just one ;-)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 11:47:53 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20020312114105.038feec0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 05:58 PM 3/11/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>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.

I don't see this as a problem _unless_ we are trying to use the same names 
(URIs) as are defined by XML schema.  And if we are trying to us the same 
names, we're in danger of trampling on someone else's lawn, and that's an 
issue to be resolved separately from the model theory.

Summary:  needs clarification before I agree it's a problem.

#g


-------------------
Graham Klyne
<GK@NineByNine.org>
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 07:24:06 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:16 EDT