W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > February 2001

Re: URIs for primitive datatypes and facets?

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:20:39 -0600
Message-ID: <3A8ECF07.71EA9345@w3.org>
To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:01:39 -0000
[...]
> 
> You're correct that the schema annotation says that the explicit xpointer
> version of the URI is the 'correct' one. Personally I think I prefer the
> shorthand. Perhaps you/we could raise this as an agenda item and try to get
> it changed to be the shorthand version?

I'm very interested to know how this turns out; I see that
the chair proposes to decline our request,
http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html#datatype-uri
but I don't see the final disposition/wg-decision.

www-rdf-logic and joint-committee folks, if you have an opinion
about whether #xpointer(id("date")) is acceptable, or whether
it's an undue implementation burden, compared with #date, please
speak up now.

The implementation burden is something like what Sandro described:

[[[
    We can solve this easily for the standard datatypes by putting all
    the classes in some ontology, publishing the classes you've been
    using (and using a nicer identifier syntax).
]]]

--        www-rdf-logic@w3.org from February 2001: a few issues with
daml
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0091.html
Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:42:07 GMT


> Gudge
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
> To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com>
> Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>; <joint-committee@daml.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:36 PM
> Subject: Re: URIs for primitive datatypes and facets?
> 
> >
> >
> > Martin Gudgin wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >From Appendix A of Part 2[1]
> > [...]
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#schema
> >
> > Thanks for the pointer. But... which is it?
> > ...XMLSchema#date or ...XMLSchema#xpointer(id(date)) ?
> >
> > They're defined to mean the same thing, in the case of
> > an XML representation of the schema, but I'm looking
> > for opaque identifiers.
> >
> > My reading of the spec says it's the latter
> > (ugh!).
> >
> > > Data type    URI
> > >
> > > string       http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#string
> > > boolean      http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#boolean
> > > float        http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#float
> > > double       http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#double
> > > decimal      http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#decimal
> > > timeDuration http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#timeDuration
> >
> > or
> >
> > >       For example, to address the date datatype, the URI is:
> > >
> > >         http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#xpointer(id("date"))
> >
> > ?
> >
> > > Hope this helps,
> >
> > Quite a bit; thanks!
> >
> > > Gudge
> > >
> > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#schema
> >
> > --
> > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2001 14:20:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:38 GMT