Re: [XSCH] possible note skectch

On Wednesday, October 27, 2004 3:08 PM,  Jeremy Carroll wrote:

> I have done a first pass at a note,
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Oct/att-0049/xsh-sw-note.html
> this is very rough and ready but shows the sort of ground I would like 
> to cover.
> I hope to polish it a little tomorrow getting some of the links into place.
> I'm hoping that during the F2F we can identify what is missing, and then 
> post F2F to get it up to publishable quality.

Here are a few comments/suggestions on the current draft. As the current draft is mainly a rough outline, the wording "... is unclear" in the following comments should be read as suggestions for further versions of the draft. 

1) User defined datatypes:

- We should provide more details on why the DAML+OIL solution is a non-standard approach to fragID and why the id solution is only partially endorsed by RFC XMLMIMETYPE.  

- Example: we can modify the datatype name "foo" as "adultAge" if we replace 1700 with 18.

2) Comparison of values

- We should present the current XML Schema solution before the three "new" solutions. Furthermore, we should compare RDF datatypes with XML Schema datatypes in order to make the situation clear. 

- The motivation of the "all primitive types different" solution is unclear.

- It is not clear how the XPath 2.0 eq operator solve the problem.

- We should provide a section about DL reasoning and datatypes, and then discuss its relations with the three "new" solutions.

Greetings,
Jeff

--
Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester


 

> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 3 November 2004 15:39:51 UTC