W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2001

Re: RDF and datatypes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:53:00 -0500
To: connolly@w3.org
Cc: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, www-webont-wg@w3.org, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
Message-Id: <20011119125300Z.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
I consider existing XML usage to be something like

<Person>
  <name>John</name>
  <age>10</age>
</Person>

you can include XML Schema if you want, but that doesn't change the inner
parts of the example.

I'm not making the argument that the RDF/XML that you get from the proposal
is somehow invalid---I'm making the argument that most XML documents would
not fit within the proposal.

Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Bell Labs Research



From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Subject: Re: RDF and datatypes
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:48:27 -0600

> "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> [...]
> > My opinion as a WOW-G member, for what it is worth, is that S is
> > fatally flawed because it is not compatible with exising XML usage.
> 
> Would you please elaborate? He gave an example in RDF/XML:
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="aaa">
>    <eg:prop xsd:integer="10" />
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> How is that not compatible with existing XML usage?
> 
> Just to fill out the details, here's the
> complete RDF/xml document implicit around
> the example Jeremy gave, including namespace
> declarations etc.:
> 
> <rdf:RDF
>     xmlns:eg="http://example/vocab#"
>     xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>     xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#">
> 
>     <rdf:Description rdf:about="aaa">
>         <eg:prop xsd:integer="10"/>
>     </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 12:53:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:46 GMT