Re: ACTION-422: Look at new d-entailment text

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
instead of
XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes Second Edition


On 4 April 2011 22:04, Matthew Perry <> 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:
> Thanks,
> Matt

Dr. Birte Glimm, Room 309
Computing Laboratory
Parks Road
United Kingdom
+44 (0)1865 283520

Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2011 10:18:22 UTC