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

Re: rdf:datatype v xsi:type

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Oct 2002 14:50:28 +0300
Message-ID: <001701c2750a$39563930$544516ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Frank Manola" <fmanola@mitre.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 16 October, 2002 14:24
Subject: Re: rdf:datatype v xsi:type


> 
> Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> >
> 
> snip
> 
> > 
> > I don't think there are any killers here.
> > In particularly I disagree with Patrick when he raises non-XSD types - 
> > simply out of scope as far as I am concerned.
> 
> I guess I don't understand this "out of scope" comment.  You may not 
> care about referring to non-XSD types (I do), but considering them was 
> certainly "in scope" as far as making the "rdf:datatype" decision was 
> concerned.  

One case in point, UAProf, where three of its four core datatypes
are not equivalent to any XML Schema datatype and it is also
unlikely that they will be defined in terms of XML Schema rather
than by some other means.

True, it is *possible* to define them with XML Schema, but
using xsi:type would, I expect, be frequently misunderstood 
as meaning they *should* be defined somewhere by XML Schema.

Also, what happens when one does XML Schema validation and
the XML Schema validator cannot locate the definitions for
xsi:type specified datatypes? Do we get errors?

I see this as a huge can of worms, the depth of which we do
not have time to probe.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 07:50:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:26 EDT