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

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:11:11 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B788773211440431621860@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com, geoff@sover.net
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com]
> Sent: 22 November, 2001 18:35
> To: geoff@sover.net
> Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
> 
> 
> 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?

Because, although we definitely want to ensure that RDF is fully
compatible with, and takes advantage of the existing XML Schema
data types, we cannot and should not preclude nor discriminate
against the use of other data typing schemes which are not
defined in XML Schema. That's not an anti-XML Schema position
(I'm actually very much pro-XML Schema).

I don't read the charter as saying that RDF must use XML Schema
data type *definition mechanisms*. Only that it should make best
use of XML Schema defined data types. Those are not quite the
same thing. 

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 Friday, 23 November 2001 14:11:04 GMT

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