- From: Birte Glimm <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2011 11:17:52 +0100
- To: Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com>, Lee Feigenbaum <lee@thefigtrees.net>, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Cc: W3C SPARQL Working Group <public-rdf-dawg@w3.org>
Yes, Oracle seems to assume version 1.1 of the spec, which I also much prefer since the older 1.0 version is IMO even contradictory regarding the canonical representation. Since 1.1 is not yet a recommendation, using it causes issues if we were to go to REC earlier then they do. This happend for OWL 2 and OWL 2 specs have to be republished when the 1.1 version for the datatypes gets REC status as I understand it. Their schedule suggests that they go to LC this month, which should align with our schedule, so I hope this won' be an issue. Could we put this on today's agenda, i.e., is the use of XML Schema Definition Language (XSD) 1.1 Part 2: Datatypes http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema11-2/ instead of XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/ ok? Birte On 4 April 2011 22:04, Matthew Perry <matthew.perry@oracle.com> wrote: > Hi Birte, > > The new text looks good to me. I guess the only issue is canonicalization of > integers, etc., as discussed in the email thread with Andy and Bijan: > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-dawg/2011JanMar/0556.html. > > Thanks, > Matt > -- Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309 Computing Laboratory Parks Road Oxford OX1 3QD United Kingdom +44 (0)1865 283520
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 10:18:22 UTC