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

Action DanC? [was Re: More on XSD in RDF]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 18:41:53 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021125183255.071b4c28@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

At 10:15 25/11/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 09:42, Brian McBride wrote:
>[...]
> >    o I suggest:
> >
> >    - we use non controversial examples of schema datatypes in our test
> > cases - stay away from the stuff that tests understanding of schema
> > datatypes more than rdf
>
>As I explained earlier, I disagree with shying away from
>contraversial issues that are relevant to our design, i.e.
>keeping them out of the test suite.

I wasn't shying away from it, I was trying to avoid a last call dependency 
on it.

However, you are pretty serious about this.

It seems to me that what we need, as well as test cases, is an RDF Schema 
for XML Schema datatypes.  If we are going to expect an xsd datatypes aware 
processor to be aware of the class hierarchy, someone should write down 
definitively what it is.

DanC, would you be willing to take an action to:

   1 write an RDF Schema for XSD datatypes
   2 Define a set of test cases to illustrate that schema and the datatype 
entailment rules
   3 Verify that RDF Schema and the test cases with the XML Schema folks
   4 Bring the schema and test cases back to RDFCore for review

Brian
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 13:40:36 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:10 EDT