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

Re: document status update

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 18 Aug 2003 21:53:47 +0100 (BST)
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
cc: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>, "Dan Connolly <connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, Eric Miller <em@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.44.0308182149190.29970-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

On Mon, 18 Aug 2003, Frank Manola wrote:

> It would be nice to verify this a bit more thoroughly.  While
> non-intersecting value spaces make for a neater model, its not clear
> from looking at the description of the value spaces of xsd:int and
> xsd:decimal in their sections of the XML Schema datatypes spec that they
> really are disjoint.

Yes; either way, the test case in question really tests XML schema,
rather than RDF itself. The reason I asked the question is due to recent
statements about the intersection or otherwise of XSD types; I'd kinda
got the impression that that XSD WG had responded with "clarification"
of this.

So either:

xsd:integer is still a subclass of xsd:decimal (which may or may not be
true with intentional semantics, regardless of the datatype L2V
definition); or rather, the value space of one is a subset of the value
space of the other (in which case nothing needs doing), or:

xsd:integer's value space is not a subset of the value space of
xsd:decimal after all, in which case I add another "What?!?" to the
list, but that's a problem to raise with the xml schema people.


-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Unfortunately, I have a very good idea how fast my keys are moving.
Received on Monday, 18 August 2003 16:55:46 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:59:40 EDT