- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 14:21:44 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <GK@ninebynine.org>
- CC: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Graham Klyne wrote: > snip > > [For discussion] > Section 0.2, Prefix xsd: namespace: > Maybe this is OK, but I think it should be checked. Some time ago, DanC > posted a "Get off my lawn" comment -- > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2000Sep/0162.html, > pointing out that folks shouldn't define URIs occupying namespaces that > are controlled by some other group. > > It's not clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form > (e.g.) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal, since the concatenation > convention is something introduced by RDF. Also, the XML schema > specification does not introduce a '#' into its namespace. There has > been some discussion about this issue, but I'm not sure that it's fully > resolved; it's not clear to me that the XML schema specs sanction use > of (say) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal to denote an RDF > datatype. I'm commenting on this because there've been comments on this before concerning other documents (and Primer has similar material). It seems clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form in question, because although the concatenation convention may be introduced by RDF, the XML Schema datatypes spec (section 3) says explicitly "For example, to address the int datatype, the URI is http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int" (it also explicitly says to construct the URIs of datatypes by using the base URI http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema, and the name of the datatype as a fragment identifier). I'm sure they don't care whether such URIs are actually constructed using RDF's concatenation convention, or by some other means, but they do say the URIs should be of that form. > > Also, I note that the normative references cite XML schema part 2, but > the document one gets by retrieving http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema > refers to part 1 only. I think this may be an omission in the document > there rather than an error in this specification. > I think there's a misunderstanding here. if you go to the W3C XML Schema page http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema, you'll see that the XML Schema specs are published in three parts. The third part, "XML Schema Part 2: Datatypes", has URL http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/, which is the URL our documents (including semantics) cite for XML Schema datatypes. The document at http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema supposedly describes the http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema *namespace*. However, it's dated several months earlier than the actual specs, and it's not clear what official status that actual page has. -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Tuesday, 31 December 2002 14:03:39 UTC