- From: Bijan Parsia <bparsia@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2007 11:25:14 +0000
- To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: public-owl-wg@w3.org
On 15 Nov 2007, at 10:45, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote: > Summary: There are approved URIs for the XSD facets. Ok, nice. Thanks for verifying that. > Result: I think that thus we can use the XSD names for the XSD facets > in OWL 1.1. Welllllll. [snip] > Note, however, that the URIs for the datatypes are *not* the > concatenation of their namespace http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema and > their local name. For example the URI for integer is > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#integer, not > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchemainteger. One would thus expect > that in > an OWL or RDF document that the namespace for prefix xsd would be > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# and not the XML Schema namespace. [snip] Ye-ouch. So if we used qnames that could turn into the right uris, we wouldn't be reusing their qnames, in fact, we wouldn't be using universal names *in their namespace*, just one very similar that they probably still own. My head hurts :( So, at the least, we still need, for XML Syntaxes, to confirm that for xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#" that things like <xsd:minInclusive.... or <... xsd:minInclusive="... are cool with them. I would hope that it is! OTOH, if we adopt their syntax for inline derived types, then we need *two* xsd declarations (the inner one shadowing the outer one)?!?! I have to say that I would be willing to support a more user rational scheme over the objections (if any) of the XML Schema working group. To wit: We need to have resolvable URIs for user defined datatypes in XML Schema documents. If they punt, we should take over. We need sensible names for facet elements and URIs. If they disagree, we should take our case upwards. We need reasonable syntax for inline datatypes. I'm open that that would be fragments of XML Schema, but given the trickinesses of XML Literals in RDF/XML, I'm also open to something like the current design. I've no evidence at the moment that the current XML Schema WG wouldn't be friendly and helpful on this points, but I strongly disagree with Jeremy's expressed opinion in the telecon that "If the XML Schema WG doesn't solve this, then it remains unsolved". *If* they are recalcitrant, we should still solve our problems. Cheers, Bijan. P.S. Here's some ranting about this from an XMLy person: http://www.jenitennison.com/blog/node/49
Received on Thursday, 15 November 2007 11:23:43 UTC