W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org > January to March 2002

Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 13:58:46 -0500
Message-ID: <3C5AE566.806702F4@mitre.org>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
CC: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>, Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
For the benefit of the uneducated among us, would you care to explain
this a bit more fully?  To the extent that RDF Core truly introduces new
concepts, it certainly should label them using an RDF namespace. 
However, if RDF wants to use values that have genuine XML datatypes
(especially if those values are going to be represented in RDF's XML
syntax), why should we not say "xsd:integer" rather than
"rdfdt:integer"?  I'm not talking now about datatypes that are "sort of
like" XML datatypes, but are really and truly XML datatypes (as is, I
believe, what we're trying to do).  What's the point of having URIs if
you have to invent new ones in order to refer to what is supposed to be
the same concept from a different language?  Talk about a "chaos of
namespaces and architectures"!

--Frank
  

Sergey Melnik wrote:
> 
> Janathan, Uche, DanC,
> 
> thank you for identifying the problem (I do remember DanC's posting
> related to grazing on someone else's grass ;)
> 
> I'm going to replace xsd: by rdfdt: in the next revision of the
> document.
snip
> 
> Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> >
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0131/01-RDF_Data
> > > > typing.htm
> > >
> > > I am concerned that this document  element names into the XML Schema
> > > namespace. It seems to me that concepts that RDFCore introduces should be
> > > labelled by an RDF namespace. It seems to me that the XML Schema namespace
> > > should be reserved for XML elements and URIs introduced by this WG.
> >
> > I agree with this, but I'd go farther.  I think that even though RDFCore is
> > not chartered to come up with a new data typing scheme, that they should
> > consider defining XSD data types using URIs under the control of RDFCore, and
> > providing a simple and normartive mapping between these and the XSD data types.
> >
> > I think that given the current chaos of namespaces and architectures in the
> > W3C, that this is the only safe approach for consistency *within* the RDF
> > space.
> >
snip
> > >
> > > i..e. just don't call it "xsd:integer" rather "rdfdt:integer"
> >


-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 14:03:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 07:15:33 UTC