W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > November 2002

RE: proposal to close Issue 5.8 Datatypes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 26 Nov 2002 18:12:03 +0100
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <www-webont-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <BHEGLCKMOHGLGNOKPGHDIEMMCAAA.jjc@hpl.hp.com>


> > > 4/ OWL can use XML Schema non-list simple types defined at the top
> > >    level of an XML Schema document and given a name, by using the URI
> > >    reference constructed from the URI of the document and the
> > > local name of
> > >    the simple type.


> > Hmmm, we should co-ordinate with RDF Core and XML Schema WGs on
> this one.
> >
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/02-index#ur
is

> If I expected RDF Core to make any progress on this issue, I would defer
to
> them. :-(


That unsmiley is realistic ...

We have an objective:

O4. Range constraints on data types
http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-webont-req-20020708/#obj-range-constraints

which requires these URIs.
It is the responsibility of the XML Schema WG to provide them, but they have
bitten off a bigger problem:

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-xml-schema-ig/2002Oct/att-0050/01-pa
rt

The DAML+OIL solution is proven, but not blessed by an appropriate group. We
are not really the appropriate group to bless it. What is the best way of
persuading XML Schema WG to do so?

Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 12:12:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:57:55 GMT