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

Re: Rough draft of datatypes with whitespace text

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 09:24:47 +0300
To: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BBA19F5F.1AF3%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>

On 2003-10-01 16:05, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
>> 
>> Eh? When did the WG agree that whitespace facets where part of *RDF*
>> datatyping?!
> 
> It hasn't.
> 
>> 
>> It has (finally) been clarified that whitespace facets in XML Schema
>> are not relevant to the L2V mapping and are not applied to lexical
>> forms. So why are we mentioning them?
> 
> There are two questions we can ask here.
> 
> A)
> 
> Is " 3 " in the lexical space of xsd:decimal?
> 
> If asked, I'd be very surprised if anyone in xml schema answered
> anything other than no.

Right.

> B)
> 
> What is the value of the property in
> 
>  <rdf:Description>
>    <eg:prop rdf:datatype="&xsd;decimal"> 3 </eg:prop>
>  </rdf:Description>
> 
> We had informal indications at last weeks telecon that the xml schema
> WG, looking at question B, were going to be seriously unhappy with the
> answer the current specs give.

Hmmm... well, I don't know about the rest of the XML Schema WG, but
Henry Thompson agreed strongly with what the present specs say, that
whatever the illformed typed literal denotes, it's not a member of
the value space of xsd:decimal.

> Accordingly, jjc was actioned to draft an alternative that would allow
> he answer to B to be 3.  This was so that we could take a look at it and
> have it ready should we get a formal comment from the xml schema folks.

Fair enough.

> [...]
> 
>> 
>> I'm sorry, but was this decided during the last telecon? I skimmed over
>> the minutes but didn't see any such substantial change.
>> 
>> Or is this just a proposal?
> 
> Neither a decision, nor a proposal.  Just preparation.

OK. As a process-related request, for those who either (a) miss
a telecon and/or (b) don't have IRC, could folks try to summarize
the context of content that might be misunderstood as either
a proposal or modification to the specifications?

Thanks,

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 2 October 2003 02:24:59 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 2 October 2003 02:25:02 EDT