W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

RE: xmlsch-04 values without lexical forms

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2003 16:41:24 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90D42@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 28 April, 2003 16:12
> To: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: xmlsch-04 values without lexical forms 
> 
> 
> 
> My reading of schema datatypes is that with a union type:
> 
>    o a lexical form can be ambiguous - i.e. might map to 
> different values 
> depending on which component type is used to do the mapping
> 
>    o the component types of a union are ordered by the order they are 
> declared when defining the union
> 
>    o by default the ambiguity is resolved by applying the 
> first type whose 
> lex space includes the literal
> 
>    o the default can be overridden by using an xsi:type attribute
> 
> In RDF we always use the default disambiguation rule.  If you want to 
> override, use a more specific datatype in the rdf:datatype attribute.
> 
> I guess I'm missing something.

No, I don't think you're missing anything. Though I would put all
of the above simply as informative and note that it is completely 
out of scope for RDF Datatyping as RDF doesn't actually see a 
union datatype as a union datatype, but as an rdfs:Datatype with
a clear and regular L2V mapping. And yes, the default disabiguation
rule is always used -- but *we* don't use it, rather, RDF simply
provides no means to use xsi:type therefore one cannot override its
use by an XML Schema datatype savvy processor.

Patrick


Patrick


> Brian
> 
> At 14:17 28/04/2003 +0200, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> 
> >I am increasingly worried by
> >
> >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20030123-issues/#xmlsch-04
> >
> >see
> >
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2003Apr
/0281.html
>
>(it does not seem to have made it into www-rdf-comments yet)
>
>Jeremy
Received on Monday, 28 April 2003 09:41:27 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:57:03 EDT