W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

Re: proposed response to Jeff Pan's response of 23 June concerning datatypes

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2003 22:02:58 +0300
To: www-webont-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200306232202.58183.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

Jeff Pan:
> I am not sure about this. Usually a URI reference of this form
> http://any.domainname/anyxsdfile.xsd#sss will be understood to denote a
> user-defined XML Schema datatype named sss.  Even though it is not a
> standard way in XML Schema, there is no harm adding that in OWL (implicitly
> require that the datatype sss be derived from one of the built-in OWL
> datatypes). Or do we want to support more datatypes than XML Schema
> datatypes, so we don't like the file extension xsd?

On Jan 22 I commented on this problem:

On (Jan 31) Feb 07
The RDF Core WG endorsed my comment

Looking in what appears to be XML Schema's issue list, the only reference to 
my name is a trivial arithmetic error that is still unassigned after more 
than six months:

"Cooperation with other working groups"

I see no mention of semantic web activity (except the old cambridge communique 
which seems overly moribund). This is despite RDF Core being explicitly 
mentioned in XML Schema WG's charter.

Perhaps I should have made more effort to get to know the XML Schema group in 
Boston or Budapest, but at the moment I am not sure that the W3C etiquette 
under which we have to wait for them to give us a URI is worth following.

How about at least having a note, (WG note or member submission with as many 
WG members as authors as possible) based on the well-known algorithm 
desdcribed by Jeff, or previously by Peter 

  (part 4)

I feel I have been a responsible team player in the W3C game, and it has not 
been working - maybe it is time to start behaving less responsibly?

Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 16:03:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:56:54 UTC