Re: Use of XSD namespace in RDF recommendations

Dan Brickley wrote:

>>> As far as I know, we have no evidence, and no reason to believe, that this
>>> is a common confusion.
>> Probably not in the form I gave.  But the much the same problem manifests in
>> a second manner that I hadn't considered when I sent the earlier email.  I
>> think this is more serious.
>> The implication of section 5 of the RDF 1.1 Concepts draft is that it should
>> be possible to use suitable types from third-party XML Schemas.  A real
>> example: English counties have a three-letter abbreviation known as a
>> Chapman code, and I can define an XML Schema type to represent them. E.g.
>>   <xs:schema xmlns=""
>>              targetNamespace="">
>>     <xs:simpleType name="chapman-code">
>>       <xs:restriction base="xs:string">
>>         <!-- I could enumerate them or use a pattern -->
>>       </xs:restriction>
>>     <xs:simpleType>
>>   </xs:schema>
>> If I want to use this type in RDF, what is its datatype URI? The RDF 1.1
>> Concepts draft is silent on the issue.  By comparison with XML Schema, we
>> might infer that it should be
>> But nothing in the Concepts draft says we should add a '#' in this way.  And
>> I am aware of nothing in the XML Schema recommendations that defines the
>> notion of a datatype URI for a schema type.
> Just FWIW, this old-ish Note discusses that issue:

Thanks.  I hadn't found that.  In that case, I think my 
comment reduces simply to a suggestion that section 5 of the 
Concepts draft should perhaps reference this, 
non-normatively if group notes are not allowed to be 
normatively referenced.  It explains why the '#' is required 
in the XML Schema case, and also discusses the possibilities 
for other schemas such as my example above.


Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 12:56:30 UTC