Re: Reworked sections on datatypes and literals

Fair enough.

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


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@ninebynine.org>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 31 October, 2002 11:36
Subject: Re: Reworked sections on datatypes and literals


> Patrick, I will consider your comments but please be aware that some are in 
> opposition to other comments we have received so I must use my 
> judgement.  Thanks for checking this -- from your responses I see no deep 
> problems, from which I take some comfort.
> 
> #g
> --
> 
> At 10:36 AM 10/31/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> >A few comments:
> >
> >1. You say
> >
> >    "RDF uses the datatype abstraction defined by XML Schema Part 2: 
> > Datatypes."
> >
> >I think it is better to say
> >
> >    "RDF uses a datatype abstraction compatable with XML Schema..."
> >
> >since RDF datatyping does not include everything defined by
> >XML Schema, and we don't need nor want to create tighter dependendencies
> >with other specs than we need to. RDF Datatyping is not XML Schema
> >Datatypes. It's simply compatable with XML Schema Datatypes.
> >
> >2. Regarding rdfs:XMLLiteral, it reads
> >
> >    "With one exception, the datatypes used in RDF have a lexical space
> >     consisiting of a set of strings. The exception is rdfs:XMLLiteral, whose
> >     lexical space is a set of pairs of strings and language identifiers, and
> >     the value obtained through its datatype mapping depends on the language
> >     identifier."
> >
> >Is this exception for XML literals really justified? If we are supposed to
> >treat XML literals the same as any other kind of literal, why not disregard
> >the xml:lang scope for them as well? Especially since it is straightforward
> >to define an xml:lang value for the XML literals directly. I.e., they are
> >literals within the RDF/XML instance, not part of the RDF/XML instance itself.
> >The fact that they happen to also be XML should not cause them to be infected
> >with syntactic machanisms specific to the RDF/XML serialization.
> >
> >3. Could you expand
> >
> >    "The predefined XML Schema datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2] are expected to be
> >     widely used for this purpose."
> >
> >to something akin to
> >
> >    "The predefined XML Schema datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2] are expected to be
> >     widely used for this purpose; though one is not limited only to the
> >     predefined XML Schema datatypes nor to XML Schema defined datatypes
> >     in particular. Any datatype which conforms to this specification may
> >     be used."
> >
> >4. The statement
> >
> >    "XML Schema Datatypes [XML-SCHEMA2] provides an extensibility framework
> >     suitable for defining new datatypes for use in RDF."
> >
> >suggests that RDF will understand XML Schema datatype specifications in some
> >manner. Perhaps it should be deleted. It's enough to simply say that datatypes
> >are not defined by RDF, and those familiar with XML Schema will know how to
> >define new types. This goes hand-in-hand with #3 above, which clarifies that
> >users *can* define and use other datatypes than the pre-defined XML Schema
> >simple types.
> >
> >Patrick
> >
> >[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
> >patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
> >
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "ext Graham Klyne" <GK@NineByNine.org>
> >To: "RDF core WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> >Sent: 30 October, 2002 18:42
> >Subject: Reworked sections on datatypes and literals
> >
> >
> > > Starting with Brian's comments, and then employing a lot of editorial
> > > discretion, I've done a major rework on the sections about datatypes and
> > > literals.
> > >
> > > The main goal of this rework was to progressively introduce the concepts,
> > > so the datatypes section has been moved ahead of literals, and the 
> > datatype
> > > examples have been split across the two sections.
> > >
> > > The rework is attached to this message.  It's not very long -- I'm posting
> > > the two sections to solicit feedback from the group, and make sure I
> > > haven't distorted the intent in any way.  (There's still an issue of
> > > requiring a lexical representation for each value [1] outstanding, which I
> > > haven't got round to addressing yet, so please don't flame me on that just
> > > yet.)
> > >
> > > #g
> > > --
> > >
> > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0396.html
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > -------------------
> > > Graham Klyne
> > > <GK@NineByNine.org>
> > >
> 
> -------------------
> Graham Klyne
> <GK@NineByNine.org>
>

Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 06:20:15 UTC