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

RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Nov 2001 13:27:57 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B162280@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Cc: geoff@sover.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > 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.

But you can use XML Schema software with the P/DAML idioms
as well. You don't, of course, expect the XML Schema parser
to be interpreting typed data literals in the RDF serialization,
right? So no matter what, some application has to provide
an interface between the XML Schema validator/parser and
the RDF graph, and the key information that is needed is the
lexical form and the URI of the data type. The interface
can then provide a meaningful serialization such as

   <some:datatype>lexical form</some:datatype>

to the XML Schema parser/validator and let it "do its thing"
according to some XML Schema.

The important thing is that this pairing is clearly and
consistently represented in the RDF graph so that it can
be provided to all applications that need it, even XML
Schema applications ;-)

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 Thursday, 29 November 2001 06:28:10 GMT

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