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

Re: URIs for datatypes (not qnames)

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 16 Oct 2002 07:34:13 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1034771654.27708.235.camel@dirk>

On Wed, 2002-10-16 at 02:18, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi 
> 
> I am finally doing the work on datatypes in the abstract data model.
> I've hit two URI vs qname problems that I *think* somebody in the group knows 
> the answer to ...
> 
> However, I did not find appropriate normative references in:
> - Patrick's document
> - the errata for XSD
> 
> 1) how do I indicate that the URI
>   &xsd;integer
> is the concept referred to in the (normative ref to) XML Schema Datatypes as 
> 'integer' in the namespace xsd: [Please give documents that I can normatively 
> reference].

[[[
 Each built-in datatype in this specification (both ·primitive· and
·derived·) can be uniquely addressed via a URI Reference constructed as
follows:

   1. the base URI is the URI of the XML Schema namespace
   2. the fragment identifier is the name of the datatype

For example, to address the int datatype, the URI is:

    * http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int
]]]

--
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xmlschema-2-20010502/#built-in-datatypes


> 2) when creating my own datatype (e.g. derived from an XML Schema Datatype) 
> how do I assign a URI to it (rather than a <namespace, local name> pair)

The XML Schema specs don't specify that.

They're working on it; from their charter:

[[[
# 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

I'm supposed to give them a nudge:

Action DC: Write to Schema WG to say that TAG is interested in progress
on this issue.
http://www.w3.org/2002/09/24-tag-summary#rdfmsQnameUriMapping-6

Meanwhile, I understood that it's "no a problem" that we don't
have explicit support for user-defined datatypes:

Re: user-defined datatype (facet) support needed?
From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: Thu, May 02 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0011.html

I still think that this _is_ a problem; the archtypical
example of a datatype in WebOnt is "integers from 1 to 10".

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 16 October 2002 08:33:38 EDT

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