RE: ambiguity in XML Schema

Hello,

Here is how I thought on handling this:

- We should make the normative text point only to XML Schema -- that is, we
don't repeat any of the definitions.

- We introduce a bunch of examples to clarify things we believe might cause
confusion. In fact, last week I've already added a bunch of examples to that
effect. All of these examples could (and should) be converted to test cases.

In this way, we are not contradicting XML Schema; however, we are making sure
that the intricate details of XML Schema and its interplay with OWL are clear.

Regards,

	Boris

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-owl-wg-request@w3.org [mailto:public-owl-wg-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Bijan Parsia
> Sent: 17 March 2009 12:34
> To: Sandro Hawke
> Cc: W3C OWL Working Group
> Subject: Re: ambiguity in XML Schema
> 
> On 17 Mar 2009, at 12:31, Sandro Hawke wrote:
> [snip]
> > 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.)
> 
> As we should for all our specs :)
> 
> > Good enough?
> 
> Indeed, but, as I say, not really XML Schema specific.
> 
> Cheers,
> Bijan.

Received on Tuesday, 17 March 2009 12:43:53 UTC