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: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:10:28 -0500
To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Cc: geoff@sover.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Message-Id: <20011124091028C.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:11:11 +0200

> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider 
> > Sent: 22 November, 2001 18:35
> > 
> > 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
> > > >
> > > > 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.
> > > 
> > > 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).

So how does this preclude other datatyping schemes.  You could have a
different datatyping scheme, instead of XML Schema, pointed to by the "du"
above.

> 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. 

Maybe not, but what would be the rationale for not using it?  You gets lots
of benefits, including the ability to use existing XML Schema software.

> Cheers,
> 
> Patrick

peter
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2001 09:12:30 GMT

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