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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-xml-schema-comments/2003JanMar/0025.html

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:
http://www.w3.org/2001/05/xmlschema-rec-comments#pficalendarTypes

Under
"Cooperation with other working groups"
on
http://www.w3.org/XML/Group/Schemas.html#xs11

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 

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html
  (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?


Jeremy
Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 16:03:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:01 GMT