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

Re: Datatype definition compatibility with XMLschema

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:11:57 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, Patrick S tickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <ztddsmVxY3Y1.0R443gsc@mail.nokia.com>



_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	Re: Datatype definition compatibility with XMLschema
Sender:	ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date:		Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:47:15 +0300


> And that's not also a requirement of XML Schema? 
Union datatypes.

given where we've got to, there's no longer any reason to exclude them.

	Right. I see now what you mean. Though it is not the case
	that any values of a union datatype do *not* have at least
	one lexical form, in the component (non-union) datatype,
	only that there is no L2V mapping to the value in the union
	datatype due to ordering of the union definition. The value
	*still* has a lexical representation. It's just "hidden" in the
	context of the union datatype.

	So the RDF requirement that all values have at least one
	lexical representation does not necessarily conflict with
	XML Schema.

	But if folks want to remove that requirement, I don't see it
	causing any real problems...

	Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 03:14:58 EST

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