W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

RE: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case)

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Aug 2002 12:18:44 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B160B76@trebe006.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>, <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jan Grant [mailto:Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk]
> Sent: 08 August, 2002 12:06
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: jos.deroo.jd; Graham.Klyne; jjc; melnik; w3c-rdfcore-wg
> Subject: RE: XML Schema is untidy (was RE: type test case)
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2002 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> >  RDF has no native
> > datatypes, and I've understood it to be WG
> > consensus that RDF would be datatype and datatype
> > framework neutral.
> I've always understood our charter's ibts and pieces about XSD
> integration to be less than neutral; anyway, I'm not part of the
> consensus on this.
> >  We're not defining
> > any built-in datatypes for RDF
> It appears that community feedback is that that's exactly 
> what we ought
> to be doing (for a small set of datatypes)

I didn't see any substantial feedback suggesting this.
A few outspoken respondents does not constitute an
overwhelming concensus of community feedback.

Furthermore, the inquiry to the community had nothing to
do with this, and the proposals reflected in that inquiry
provide *full* support for all XML Schema datatypes.

The WG has *agreed* that any deviations from the stake-in-the-ground
proposal would be motivated by clear technical and practical
considerations -- i.e. fatal flaws or errors in the proposal.

The built in datatypes suggested by Dan's N3 examples are
*not* necessary and do not provide any functionality over
the present proposal. Furthermore, they increase the 
implementational burden on RDF parser and query tools
to provide native support for such datatypes -- when a
great deal of RDF processing can be done without recourse
to resolving the actual lexical to value mappings or
testing lexical validity of property values.

In short, we should not be spending time on this. 

> > and need to allow
> > the datatyping mechanisms to work equally well with
> > all URI denoted datatypes
> Given the above, our task would appear to be to come up with a
> story about the treatment of various datatypes that arose during
> requirements collection. If we can do that, great. If there are
> stumbling blocks, then this needs a(nother) rethink, or a 
> retreat to an
> earlier proposal.

Read the archives.

Rather, it is the burden of those who think there should be
built-in native datatypes to demonstrate why the current
proposal as reflected by the latest WD does not work.

Received on Thursday, 8 August 2002 05:18:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC