RE: Using XMLSchema-instance attributes in RDF/XML Syntax (fwd)

Thanks, Tom, for your comments. 

I have since been playing around more with the whole issue of
XML Schema validation of RDF/XML encoded typed literals, and
have come to the conclusion that, while there are several options
that would work for either global typing or local typing, there
does not seem to be a suitable solution that will work for both
global and local typing in the same RDF/XML instance, and that
ultimately, it will end up being more work than is worth the
effort to try to employ an XML Schema validator on the RDF/XML
directly.

Rather, I feel that it will be far more productive (and correct)
to base validation on the RDF graph -- even if employing an
XML Schema validator, or some of its components, in validating
typed literals.

Feel free to have a look at the latest datatyping draft (which
is an editors work-in-progress and does not reflect the concensus
of the WG, but is merely a current proposal under discussion)
and let me know what you think.

c.f. http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html

Regards,

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Thomas G. Habing [mailto:thabing@uiuc.edu]
> Sent: 28 August, 2002 01:32
> To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> Cc: danbri@w3.org; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Using XMLSchema-instance attributes in RDF/XML 
> Syntax (fwd)
> 
> 
> Hi Patrick,
> 
> If I understand inlined datatype elements correctly, I think 
> it could (with
> some minor? changes) be a suitable representation, at least 
> for the simple
> XML Schema types.
> 
> Looking at one of the examples from your referenced note:
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Jenny" xml:lang="en">
>   <ex:age><xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer></ex:age>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> I assume that xsd is mapped to the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema
> namespace.  Unfortunately, the XML Schema schema does not 
> define an element
> xsd:integer, only a simple type xsd:integer, meaning that you 
> cannot just
> feed the above example to a validator to check whether 10 is indeed an
> integer or not.  I suppose you could do some preprocessing to 
> turn the above
> into something that would be palatable to a validator, such as
> 
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Jenny" xml:lang="en">
>   <ex:age xsi:type="xsd:integer">10</ex:age>
> </rdf:Description>
> 
> which, of course, begs the whole questions.  Anyway, assuming 
> that you do
> not want to allow the use of xsi:type, but want to stick with 
> the inline
> approach (which I do like), you could instead of using
> <xsd:integer>10</xsd:integer> use something like
> <xdt:integer>10</xdt:integer> where xdt (my suggested URI is
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance-datatypes) is a new 
> namespace
> which defines elements which correspond to the simple, 
> built-in datatypes of
> XML schema.  Thus, for every simple, builtin XML Schema 
> datatype, you now
> have a standard element which can be used in instance 
> documents to represent
> that type. A complete (and XML Schema validatable) example to 
> illustrate:
> 
> INSTANCE DOCUMENT:
> 
> <rdf:RDF
>   xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
>   xmlns:ex="http://somewhere.edu/something/"
>   xmlns:xdt="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance-datatypes#"
>   xmlns:xsi="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance"
>   
> xsi:schemaLocation="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance-
> datatypes
>                       xml-instance-types.xsd">
>   <rdf:Description rdf:about="#Jenny" xml:lang="en">
>     <ex:age><xdt:integer>10</xdt:integer></ex:age>
>   </rdf:Description>   
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> 
> XML SCHEMA for xdt:
> 
> <xsd:schema
>   
> targetNamespace="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance-datatypes"
>   xmlns:xdt="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-instance-datatypes#"
>   xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema">
>  
>   <xsd:element name="integer" type="xsd:integer"/>
>   <xsd:element name="string" type="xsd:string"/>
>   <xsd:element name="dateTime" type="xsd:dateTime"/>
>   <!--...-->
> 
> </xsd:schema>
> 
> I suppose this approach could be extended to allow XML Schema 
> Validation for
> nearly any derived or even complex types.  However, even so, 
> I still contend
> that the xsi namespace should be ignored by RDF for this 
> technique to be
> used to its fullest.  According to current specs, even the
> xsi:schemaLocation attribute in the rdf:RDF element would cause an RDF
> parser to complain.
> 
> Kind regards,
>  Tom
> 
> 
> Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> > 
> > Thomas,
> > 
> > Could you please have a look at
> > 
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0187.html
> > 
> > Would the use of inlined datatype elements be a suitable 
> representation
> > for validating datatyped literals with an XML Schema validator?
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > Patrick
> > 
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ext Thomas G. Habing [mailto:thabing@uiuc.edu]
> > > Sent: 21 August, 2002 20:51
> > > To: Stickler Patrick (NRC/Tampere)
> > > Cc: ext Dan Brickley; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> > > Subject: Re: Using XMLSchema-instance attributes in RDF/XML
> > > Syntax (fwd)
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi Patrick,
> > >
> > > I appreciate the reply, even if it isn't what I wanted to
> > > hear :-)  If I
> > > understand correctly, you are saying that, for various
> > > reasons, it is not
> > > appropriate to ever expect to be able to validate an RDF/XML
> > > instance using
> > > XML Schema (except possibly through some non-standard 
> means such as
> > > transforming some hybrid RDF/XML into different forms
> > > depending on whether
> > > RDF or XML Schema processing is desired).  This seems
> > > unfortunate since my
> > > vision of the two is complimentary instead of competing.
> > >
> > > I can appreciate the desire to unify RDF and XML Schema, but
> > > I would suggest
> > > that at least for the short term that the unification can be
> > > very modest --
> > > something akin to my original suggestion :-) or some 
> variation such as
> > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Aug/0
> > > 124.html.
> > > Then at least it will be possible to create a valid RDF/XML
> > > that can be
> > > validated with XML Schema.  If the grand unification of RDF
> > > and XML Schema
> > > is closer than I think it is, that would be great and you can
> > > skip this
> > > short term step, but I suspect it will be a while before 
> I see an RDF
> > > datatyping spec which unifies the two, much less widely supported,
> > > non-experimental tools that support everything that XML
> > > Schema currently
> > > supports, such as regular expressions patterns, unions of 
> datatypes,
> > > extension and restriction of datatypes based on facets, etc.
> > > (I just now
> > > scanned some of the OWL specs, and they look promising, but I
> > > am sticking to
> > > my current convictions for the moment :-)
> > >
> > > I have also interspersed some additional comments below.
> > >
> > > Respectfully submitted,
> > >       Tom Habing
> > >
> > > Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for the pointer Dan. I was about to reply
> > > > directly to Thomas on this.
> > > >
> > > > I can very much appreciate the utility that would be
> > > > afforded XML Schema users in being able to express
> > > > local datatyping using xsi:type, but there remain several
> > > > questions about its use that have not been clarified:
> > > >
> > > > 1. Must the datatype identified by xsi:type conform to
> > > > the XML Schema specification? Some preliminary
> > > > research I've done to determine this shows a strong
> > > > perception that this is true. Yet RDF datatyping should
> > > > work equally well for any arbitrary datatype which
> > > > conforms to the minimal characteristics defined by
> > > > RDF, including but not limited to  XML Schema datatypes.
> > >
> > > My answer to this is, of course xsi:type should conform to
> > > the XML Schema
> > > specification; that's the whole point.  Why can't RDF
> > > datatyping and XML
> > > Schema datatyping coexist?
> > >
> > > > 2. Will the XML Schema WG/community have a problem
> > > > with RDF adopting xsi:type as a key term in its own
> > > > vocabulary if that  means extending
> > > > or interpreting its semantics to apply to datatypes not
> > > > bound by the XML Schema specs. I suspect not.
> > >
> > > Because I want to see RDF and XML Schema peacefully coexists,
> > > I disagree.
> > > Based on the above, the whole purpose of xsi:type is to
> > > indicate that some
> > > part of a document should conform to some type defined in an
> > > XML Schema.
> > > Therefore, I believe this is the only way that xsi:type 
> should ever be
> > > used.  RDF should never use xsi:type (except to ignore it)
> > > unless it can
> > > also be used in the way expected by XML Schema.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > 3. Is introducing this co-dependency between the two
> > > > standards absolutely necessary? One could easily
> > > > construct a generic tool that incorporates an XML
> > > > Schema validator and which validates typed literals
> > > > in RDF/XML instances without parsing the RDF/XML
> > > > into a graph.
> > >
> > > This may just be semantics, but I wouldn't necessarily call
> > > what I suggested
> > > creating a co-dependency between RDF and XML Schema.  It 
> is more like
> > > defining a dividing line between RDF and XML Schema --
> > > simply, any attribute
> > > in the XML Schema Instance (xsi) namespace is within the sole
> > > purview of XML
> > > Schema, and RDF processors should keep their hands off.  
> Note, I am
> > > referring only to the XML Schema _Instance_ namespace, not
> > > the XML Schema
> > > namespace (xsd).  I like the idea of using things like 
> <xsd:Integer
> > > rdf:value='1234'/> and having that interpreted as valid RDF.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Given the other aspects of RDF validation, as well as
> > > > those of upper layers such as OWL, I expect that in the
> > > > long term, validation will be performed on the graph,
> > > > not on the XML, and so any utility derived from adopting
> > > > xsi:type would be limited and short lived.
> > >
> > > Even so, why can't we have both, if desired, especially for
> > > the short term?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > While I'm very sympathetic to easy validation of RDF/XML
> > > > containing XML Schema datatyped literals, I don't think
> > > > it is advisable to employ xsi:type, for the reasons outlined
> > > > above.
> > > >
> > > > Cheers,
> > > >
> > > > Patrick
> > > >
> > > > _____________Original message ____________
> > > > Subject:        Using XMLSchema-instance attributes in
> > > RDF/XML Syntax (fwd)
> > > > Sender: ext Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
> > > > Date:           Wed, 21 Aug 2002 09:52:49 +0300
> > > >
> > > > of interest re datatyping options...
> > > >
> > > > dan
> > > >
> > > > ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> > > > Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 16:20:31 -0500
> > > > From: Thomas G. Habing <thabing@uiuc.edu>
> > > > To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > > > Subject: Using XMLSchema-instance attributes in RDF/XML Syntax
> > > > Resent-Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2002 17:20:35 -0400 (EDT)
> > > > Resent-From: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
> > > >
> > > > Hi all,
> > > >
> > > > I posted the following to www-rdf-comments recently, but it
> > > didn't generate
> > > > any comments or followup, so I am posting here to see what
> > > happens :-).
> > > > Does what I am proposing make sense, is it too simplistic,
> > > or am I just
> > > > missing something?
> > > >
> > > > ---
> > > >
> > > > I have been trying to figure out how I can use the various
> > > > XMLSchema-instance attributes (especially xsi:type, but
> > > also xsi:nil,
> > > > xsi:schemaLocation, etc.) in an RDF/XML document.  I want
> > > to create valid
> > > > RDF/XML, but at the same time I want to be able to 
> validate at least
> > > > portions of the RDF/XML using XML Schema.  Some of my XML
> > > Schemas require
> > > > the use of the xsi:type attribute in the instance documents
> > > in order to
> > > > validate.  However, RDF insists on treating these
> > > xsi:attributes as RDF
> > > > property attributes which causes the RDF to be invalid.
> > > >
> > > > I can understand this in the original RDF M&S since it
> > > predates XML Schema
> > > > by a year or so, but I am surprised to see no mention of
> > > this issue in the
> > > > newest "RDF/XML Syntax Specification."
> > > >
> > > > I have seen some of the discussions in the various lists of
> > > using xsi:type
> > > > for data typing in RDF.  I don't claim to understand most
> > > of the issues
> > > > associated with this, but I would like to humbly suggest
> > > that at the very
> > > > least there should be some language in the "RDF/XML Syntax
> > > Specification" to
> > > > the effect that attributes in the XMLSchema-instance
> > > namespace should be
> > > > ignored by RDF parsers, similar to what is done with the
> > > xml* attributes.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > >         Tom
> > > > --
> > > > Thomas Habing
> > > > Research Programmer, Digital Library Projects
> > > > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> > > > 155 Grainger Engineering Library Information Center, MC-274
> > > > thabing@uiuc.edu, (217) 244-4425
> > > > http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thomas Habing
> > > Research Programmer, Digital Library Projects
> > > University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> > > 155 Grainger Engineering Library Information Center, MC-274
> > > thabing@uiuc.edu, (217) 244-4425
> > > http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu
> > >
> 
> -- 
> Thomas Habing
> Research Programmer, Digital Library Projects
> University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
> 155 Grainger Engineering Library Information Center, MC-274
> thabing@uiuc.edu, (217) 244-4425
> http://dli.grainger.uiuc.edu
>

Received on Wednesday, 28 August 2002 03:58:30 UTC