xsi:type not specializable [was: datatypes status

On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 03:16, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
[...]
> To that end, I have a question that I've yet to find an answer
> to in my own diggings around: Is it possible to equate rdf:type
> with xsi:type in an XML Schema in a similar fashion to 
> rdfs:subPropertyOf, so that an XML Schema validator would
> recognize rdf:type as synonymous with xsi:type?

No, it's not extensible that way.

http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type

> If so, then
> there's no reason not to go with rdf:type. If not, then even
> though it feels a bit icky, I could be persuaded to go with
> xsi:type, and then define formally in the RDF MT that xsi:type
> is rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type to tie it into the RDF typing
> semantics.
> 
> Eh?

No, don't go there either. xsi:type makes sense (to me)
as part of the syntax of a literal; it doesn't
make sense (to me) as a subPropertyOf rdf:type;
we don't want parsers to have to theorem-proving
to distinguish one literal for another.
That's sorta the point of literals: you can see,
just by looking, whether they denote the same
thing or not.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 17:16:25 UTC