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

RE: More on XSD in RDF

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:12:06 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDGEMDCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> My impression is that while there is evidently a problem with 
> equality in XML Schema
> simple datatypes, it is not per se a problem with RDF Datatyping. 
> 
> I.e., it should be sufficient to (a) note the problems in XML 
> Schema and (b) submit
> suggestions to the XML Schema WG, but I don't see how this 
> impacts the current
> RDF datatyping model.
> 
> If XML Schema says that xsd:float and xsd:decimal have disjunct 
> value spaces,
> we may wish to disagree and consider that a bug, but that doesn't 
> affect how
> those datatypes are modeled in RDF.

Clearly, a target audience for my doc, after I have addressed the string valued datatypes is the XML Schema WG.
I tend to agree with DanC, that we haven't really done datatyping until an implementor can implement. Since HP intend to implement our specs, it is necessary for someone in HP to work out what they mean. When the specs are self-contradictory this is a problem. (Not an uncommon problem :( ).

I think it makes more sense for the WG to do this work once for everyone, rather than leave it to the implementors to do it, possibly differently, one by one.

It's a shame we took so long on the RDF mechanics, and have hence neglected the XSD side of the picture.

Jeremy
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 07:12:20 EST

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