Re: ambiguity in XML Schema

> On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:09, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> 
> >> On Fri, Mar 13, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Antoine Zimmermann
> >> <antoine.zimmermann@deri.org> wrote:
> >>> Boris Motik a =E9crit :
> >>>>
> >>>> =A0[...]
> >>>> Note that this is *exactly* the same problem as the one we have  
> >>>> with
> >>>> xsd:decimal
> >>>> and xsd:double; hence, I consider it really strange to use one  
> >>>> solution
> >>>> for
> >>>> numerics but a completely different one for dates.
> >>>
> >>> I agree. And for consistency, it would be reasonable to adopt this  
> >>> change=
> >> ,
> >>> IMHO.
> >>>
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> - Nobody (such as RIF) can scorn us for going our way: we can  
> >>>> always poi=
> >> nt
> >>>> to
> >>>> XML Schema and say "Here is the holy bible!"
> >>>
> >>> The Bible is all about interpretation ;-)
> >>
> >> Hello Antoine.
> >> I'd consider something of a failure if anything in our normative
> >> specification is subject to interpretation. Would you not agree that
> >> the bible is a rather bad example to follow if one is writing a
> >> specification?
> >> -Alan
> >
> > I believe Antoine was making a (rather funny, IMHO) joke, and perhaps
> > also a point to Boris that *just* pointing to XML Schema will, in some
> > cases, be a disservice to folks using our specs.
> 
> [snip]
> I don't see that at all. Boris's point is simple: We can't be  
> criticized for deviating from XML Schema if we don't deviate. I think  
> this will set lots of peoples' mind at rest instead of getting into  
> difficult and contentious arguments.
> 
> Personally, I think it's much easier to justify a new datatype that  
> covers a new area (rationals and reals) than it is to justify (to the  
> public) mucking with the extant datatypes. And I think that's Boris's  
> point.
> 
> Antoine's comment *was* funny and I suggest we not take throw away  
> jokes as fodder for discussion.
> 
> I don't see a need to write a "how to read XML Schema" at this point.  
> Our texts are clear. The collective understanding of what XML Schema  
> means in an OWL context is *far* higher than it was before. I feel  
> comfortable with us going to CR with our current state of play.

I don't disagree with any of that.

I suggest we leave it at this: if someone sees a place where they
believe folks could reasonably mis-understand XML Schema (with respect
to OWL), they should propose one or more test cases to clarify the
matter.  *If* we end up approving some test cases like that, then we'll
consider whether some clarifying text is needed somewhere (in our specs
or in XML schema specs.)

Good enough?

     -- Sandro

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:31:36 UTC