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

Re: More on XSD in RDF

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 09:52:27 +0000
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <8948.1038217947@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>Jeremy Carroll said:
> 
> I was looking over XSD again.
> It seems to me as though the recommendation to use XSD within RDF raises 
> more questions than we have currently been considering. IMO, it may knock 
> us off target (and probably should).
> 
> I have begun working on what I think would be a set of answers ...
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/
> or maybe (the supposedly equal)
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/index2.html

Picking one of these two documents to look at, the former.

This looks more like a comment by you suitable for the W3C XML Schema
group to deal with, or should be made into such a comment, asking
them specific questions.  It could also be feedback into XSD 1.1
requirements.

As to the content, it seems OK however the issue of URIs for XSD
types is already something the Schema WG has to address:

  [[[
  # the definition of a free-standing specification describing how to name
  or refer to arbitrary components in an XML Schema; in existing
  discussions these are sometimes referred to as normalized universal
  names or NUNs
  ]]]
  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/12/xmlbp/xml-schema-wg-charter.html

See also:
  TAG issue: http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/ilist#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6
  Discussion: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2002OctDec/0011.html

and (member only) draft (1 Oct 2002):
  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/att-0050/01-part
However I can't see it in the XSD 1.1 candidate requirements (member only)
  http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/2002/07/xmlschema-1.1-current-reqs.html

[ Why is this all member only? ]

In particular this is testing somebody elses specification again
(like with xml:base) and we should try to avoid this.

This analysis certainly should not be normative text in our
specifications at this stage.

If there is anything to add to the Concepts WD, maybe it would be to
spell out the exact requirements for datatypes used in RDF
datatyping, some of which is in the introduction to the above.  Maybe
near http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Datatypes ?

Dave
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 04:52:56 EST

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