W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 11:34:34 -0500
To: geoff@sover.net
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011122113434S.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>
Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:30 -0500

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F.
> > Patel-Schneider
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:34 PM
> > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > Cc: joint-committee@daml.org
> > Subject: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
> >
> > An RDF/XML serialization of an RDF graph element of the form
> > 	< s , p , v > for v a data value
> > is of the form
> > 	<... s ...>
> > 	  ...
> > 	  <p xsi:type="du">x</p>
> > 	  ...
> > 	</...>
> > where d is some datatype with URI du
> > for which v in DTC(d) and x is a lexical form for v in d.
> >
> > Thus in the serialization we need access to the lexical-to-value mapping,
> > but not in the model theory.
> 
> If you're going to put the mapping in the parsing, why not just use
> 'parseType=' to make clear it's a parser directive?

Precisely because XML Schema has a perfectly good way of doing it, so why
not use that way?

> Happy Thanksgiving,
> 
> Geoff Chappell

peter
Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 11:35:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:51:52 GMT