- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 12:12:58 +0200
- To: ext Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <fmanola@mitre.org>
- CC: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, RDF Comments <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>, <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
On 2002-02-02 1:23, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote:
> I agree with your point. The trouble of using those genuine XML
> datatypes is that the XSD document introduces those URIs for datatypes
> as a whole, which are some kind of complex abstract objects.
> Specifically, datatypes are defined as 3-tuples, so that the URI like
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int effectively denotes a 3-tuple, but
> not the value space or lexical space of the datatype.
But one does not need to reference these spaces directly by URI to
provide a consistent and reliable interpretation of the literal (lexical
form).
> Some datatyping schemes and idioms that are currently under
> consideration require explicit identifiers for say value spaces.
Some, but not all. [Shall we continue to speak in hints or give
these proposals their proper names?]
> For
> this reason, I introduced URIs like
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int.val in [1]. Using such URIs would
> be "politically correct" only if the authors of the XSD spec assign them
> explicitly the meaning we think they should carry - in fact, maybe we
> (the RDFCoreWG) could ask them to do so, or they could authorize us?
Why go to all that trouble if it is not necessary? Why make the world
more complicated than it has to be?
>
> [1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/datatyping/
http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/TDL.html
Cheers,
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 Sunday, 3 February 2002 05:12:15 UTC