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

Re: More semantic comments (XML Schema value spaces)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:14:57 -0600
To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1037204099.11401.21536.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:09, Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> As Pat and I have gone through, there are two separate issues here:
> 
> 1) Value spaces -- they're sets alright, as you would hope and expect,
> and their members are simple things _in the world_ such as numbers,
> strings, booleans, URIs.

yes, that's how I read the spec.

> 2) The definition of certain aspects of schema-validity which appear
> to appeal to values should actually be understood as appealing to
> pairs of values and the type they are a member of.  Thus the REC says
> that (double)3 does not compare equal to (float)3, and
> (string)my:aname does not compare equal to (anyURI)my:aname.

Ah.. that makes sense... it's (a) consistent with how I read
the specs and (b) explains what motivated PatH to
note an anomaly in the RDF model theory spec.

> (2) is _only_ relevant to W3C XML Schema internal processes, and
> shouldn't get in the way of RDF using the types and their value
> spaces, in my opinion.

Yes, I agree; thanks for the quick clarification.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 11:15:31 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:05 EDT