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

Re: WebOnt: Structured Datatypes

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:32:41 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021029072347.02c6a478@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Jonathan,

This mailing list for members of the RDFCore WG.  If you have 
comments/questions you'd like to send, please use www-rdf-comments@w3.org.

At 22:05 28/10/2002 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote:

>Concerning the WebOnt issue regarding "Structured Datatypes"
>http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues-071902.html#I4.3-Structured-D
>atatypes, it looks like WebOnt is running out of time to be able to create a
>"deep" understanding of XML datatypes.
>
>I am wondering if a clarification of RDF datatypes might provide us an
>interim solution.

We too are very short of time.  I think webont is further ahead than we are 
and it is dependent on us.  I do not intend to allow starting discussion on 
new issues unless it is absolutely unavoidable to complete the work we have 
already done.


>The current RDF datatypes proposal seems to consider so-called "simple" XML
>Schema datatypes e.g.
>
><rdf:Description>
>     <ex:foo rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">10</ex:foo>
></rdf:Description>
>
>might this also work for "XML" datatypes i.e. fragments of XML that are
>valid with respect to a "complex" XML Schema datatype e.g.
>
><rdf:Description>
>     <ex:foo rdf:datatype="&foo;bar">
>             <this> is a simple structured datatype</this>
>     </ex:foo>
></rdf:Description>
>
>where &foo;bar identifies an XML Schema particule analogous to the XML
>datatype <!ELEMENT this (#PCDATA)>
>
>If this is already allowed, I will propose that WebOnt close our issue and
>if its not something currently allowed, do RDF Core folk consider this
>useful?

It is not currently allowed.  Dave, correct me if I'm wrong.  We 
don't  allow combining rdf:datatype and parseType="Literal" do we?

It may be useful but that is a matter for a future WG.  I could add it to 
our list of postponed issues if you like.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 02:30:29 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:32 EDT