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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 25 Nov 2002 15:44:39 -0600
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1038260680.5319.408.camel@dirk>

On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 13:51, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> 
> PS - the format proposal got thrown out because it can't do the job for 
> webont.

It can and does do the job for webont,
in my experience.

> I think you need to address how to do cardinaliy constraints 
> without ever considering values

What do you mean by that?

> .... Yes, it is conceptually simpler, but 
> no, it isn't datatyping.

It is datatyping to my satisfaction, and to
the satisfaction of a number of other
members of the WG.

> Hmmm, format constrained to canonical forms would 
> cope with cardinality constraints ...

You don't even have to constraint it to canonical forms;
you can just note that "10" and "010" are different,
and note that folks should avoid "010" when writing a numeral.

> we could make it part of the concrete 
> syntax to abstract syntax mapping that lexical forms were canonicalized, 
> then we could avoid thinking about values.

no, just make it best practice to use canonical lexical forms.

> This would give us yet another 
> version of equality, which differed even more from that in XML schema.
> I don't think we can duck the problems.

I don't see any problems.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 16:45:48 EST

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