- From: Kendall Clark <kendall@monkeyfist.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Sep 2005 09:49:15 -0400
- To: Lee Feigenbaum <feigenbl@us.ibm.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-dawg@w3.org
On Tue, Sep 27, 2005 at 02:26:43AM -0400, Lee Feigenbaum wrote: > So, we can't legally both allow for multiple (default or named) graphs, > and also allow for the elements to be in an arbitrary order. So I suspect > that we should change this from an xs:all to an xs:sequence. I originally had this as a seq, but someone in the WG pointed out that there's no semantics of ordering here (and there isn't, really), so I changed it to an all. Oh well, I guess it's gonna be changed back. :> (I wonder if I should include a note in the spec or the schema to the effect that these aren't *really* ordered...?) > 2. Importing XML Schema > > So, I don't have a good solution here, and I don't think Kendall does > either. No, I don't. I don't believe there is a good solution to get around the mismatch between schema and RDF. I wonder, though, if there's a solution in the direction of the WSDL 2.0 alternative schema languages note? That won't help re: WSDL 1.1, though. Cheers, Kendall -- Sad songs and waltzes aren't selling this year... --Cake
Received on Tuesday, 27 September 2005 13:54:25 UTC