- From: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
- Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2004 10:46:19 -0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Jeremy, > Thanks Jeff, > > can I suggest: > > I concentrate on getting the value side nearer finished, and then you > add a new subsection on the DL reasoning side of things. I think that is > important but distinctly more in your domain of expertise than mine. Sure, no problem. I assume we will put the DL reasoning section at the end of the draft. Please tell me where do I upload the section and when will be the deadline of it. > I had a further thought that it would be worth having a new short > section on duration during the readers attention to the fact that F&O > (??? or is it some other XSLT/XQuery WD) does solve the problems with > duration by replacing it with yearMonthDuration and hourMinuteSecond > duration (or something like that). This is another leftover from the > recommendation round. Very interesting. Do you have any links about the solution of F&O? Greetings, Jeff -- Dr. Jeff Z. Pan ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ ) School of Computer Science, The University of Manchester > Jeremy > > > Jeff Pan wrote: >> 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 Friday, 26 November 2004 10:46:56 UTC