W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-swbp-wg@w3.org > March 2005

Re: [XSCH] new editors draft

From: Jeff Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2005 17:43:57 -0000
Message-ID: <004d01c528bd$78779500$afc15882@Newton>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "SWBPD" <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>

Jeremy,

> I have updated the editors' draft at:
> 
> http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/BestPractices/XSCH/xsch-sw/

Thanks for your pass.
 
> changes are marked with a %%

[...]

> Still to do are:
> - integrate Ralph Swick's comments which are on paper (which I hope to 
> do on Tuesday)
> - for Jeff to respond to the 'EDITOR'S OPINION' section, and to agree to 
> other changes I've made

I have edited the 'EDITOR'S OPINION' section, *as well as* integrated my other comments (including fix of some typos) on texts related to formal semantics of datatypes. 

The updated draft is available at

http://dl-web.man.ac.uk/~panz/xsch-sw/. 

All changes are marked with a %%.

 
> Jeff:
> I am hoping that you can suggest any of the following on each EDITOR'S 
> OPINION block:
> 
> 1) change, perhaps with minor rewording to 'EDITORS' OPINION' and put 
> both our names on it
> 2) add a second different EDITOR'S OPINION block with your name on it
> 3) no change (i.e. you don't offer a different opinion but you don't 
> endorse mine)
> 
> The goal is to stimulate public discussion, i.e. this is what Jeremy 
> and/or Jeff will argue for: if you don't like it best to say so now.
> 
> I believe the format makes it clear that this is a personal and not a WG 
> view.
> 
> FWIW here are my two opinions:
>     EDITOR'S OPINION: My preference is a position combining aspects of 
> all three solutions which is to use @id where possible, and once XSCD 
> goes to Rec to also use that, particularly for XML Schema that are not 
> under the control of the RDF or OWL author. Jeremy Carroll
> 
>     EDITOR'S OPINION: My preference is to use XPath eq despite it not 
> being an equivalence relation. I think the advantage of compatibility 
> with XPath and SPARQL. I hope that the implementation problems are 
> resolvable. Jeremy Carroll

I have updated the two opinions as follows: 

 %%EDITORS' OPINION: Our preference is a position combining aspects of all three solutions which is to use @id where possible, and once XSCD goes to Rec to also use that, particularly for XML Schema that are not under the control of the RDF or OWL author. Jeremy Carroll, Jeff Pan 

 %%EDITORS' OPINION: Our preference is to use XPath eq despite it not being an equivalence relation (the difference between the two relations can be captured by the approximation mapping mapsTo). The advantage of this choice is the compatibility with XPath and SPARQL. We hope that the implementation problems are resolvable. Jeremy Carroll, Jeff Pan 

Greetings,
Jeff

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


> Sorry Evan this is not ready in time, since there are still a few 
> changes to go, and I suspect I should review the changed text over the 
> weekend too.
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>
Received on Monday, 14 March 2005 17:44:35 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:31:07 UTC