W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 13:48:05 +0200
To: ext Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
CC: RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B87C5895.C91D%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-01-28 17:42, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> wrote:

> Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
>> 
>> If the qname used in the RDF/XML
>> serialization always resulted in the correct URI in the RDF graph,
>> in a context where the qname is not being interpreted by an XML
>> Schema application, would that be OK?
> 
> If that means either creating a new URI which starts with
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema _for any purpose_ including as a namespace
> name, and not documenting this in XML Schema, or binding the prefix "xsd" to
> other than http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema , then no.
> 
> Again, would you object if I were to redefine the usage of rdf:about etc.
> ("rdf" bound to the RDF namespace) and widely distribute software, with a
> small disclaimer at the bottom "this close to RDF"? Perhaps acceptable to
> the RDFIG in a strawman situation, but don't unleash this upon masses of
> unsuspecting web developers who will simply get confused.

You're missing my question. If the URI is the *correct* URI,
not a new one, not one with redefined semantics, but the actual,
single XML Schema defined URI for the datatype, would that be
OK?

>> 
>> Note that, because of the nature of the RDF/XML content model
>> (or lack thereof ;-) you cannot validate an RDF instance according
>> to a DTD or XML Schema very easily, and I don't believe it was
>> ever expected that RDF instances would be tested for anything other
>> than well-formedness except by an RDF specific parser.
> 
> Actually a RELAXNG grammer can.

Point taken. Though my question is based on the scenario
that only an RDF parser is interpreting the RDF instance.
 
>> ... it seems that we
>> actually can find a reasonable way to use both RDF and XML Schema
>> datatypes, and it would be great to do so, while we work on fixing
>> all that other stuff.
>> 
>> It's kind of a crawl, walk, run progression...
>> 
> 
> When you issue a W3C recommendation, it becomes hardwired as a compatibility
> issue for as long at the web as we know it exists. Do it correctly. Make it
> something you will be proud to have your name on.

I intend to. But we are not defining RDF 2.0 (much as I would like to)
but clarifying/fixing RDF 1.0.

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 06:47:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:30 GMT