- From: Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:22:33 -0500
- To: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
RDF datatyping should allow the form:
http://example.org#foo http://example.org#prop "<this>is some structured
XML</this>"^^http://example.org/SomeSchema#myType
where http://example.org/SomeSchema#myType identifies the XML datatype:
element this{text}
Similarly RDF/XML should provide for:
<rdf:Description rdf:about="http://example.org#foo">
<ex:prop rdf:datatype="http://example.org/SomeSchema#myType">
<this>is some structured XML</this>
</ex:prop>
</rdf:Description>
1. There is no compelling reason to prohibit this given the current RDF
datatyping solution for which this is a minor modification to the syntax.
2. Allowing this will be very useful for OWL which needs to deal with
structured datatypes
3. Despite the face that XML Schema does not _automatically_ provide for
URIs for schema particles, when it does in the future, and when one
explicitly assigns a URIref to an XML Schema particle, this solution will be
most useful.
3a. The failure of XML Schema to provide URIs should not arbitrarily limit
RDF datatypes. Indeed such a failure will arbitrarily limit future RDF and
XML Schema datatype interoperability
-- 2 specifications would need to be fixed not just one -- both the current
XML Schema REC and the new RDF REC
-- there wouldn't be so much reason for XML Schema to provide URIs for
complex datatypes since RDF wouldn't be able to use them.
Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 07:42:27 UTC