- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 21:21:52 +0200
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 17:37, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote: > On 2002-02-05 17:20, "ext Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> > wrote: > >> My comments below. >> >>> 5: Do we allow S-A idiom? >> >> No ;-) > > In all fairness, I think I should explain my 'no' vote. One additional comment about S-A with regards to feedback from the XML Schema folks (Sorry if I seem a bit overboard on this, but I feel this comment is very important, and relates to concerns expressed by others than myself, which makes it all the more notable ;-) There has been quite some strong postings against RDF's treatment of namespace prefix use for xsd datatypes, based on the incompatable methods used by XML Schema and RDF to derive URIs from qnames. The rdf:dtype bNode idioms fortunately avoid this issue entirely by not requiring qnames to be used for XML Schema datatypes, ever. The S-A idiom throws us right into the middle of that quagmire. Or alternately, forces us to define a synonymous set of URIs that the XML Schema folks won't shout about, which are then related to the full XML Schema URIs. So, given all the different complications surrounding S-A, even if each one alone could be accepted, the total sum of these becomes overwhelming. Anyway, I'm going to bed now... night all! Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 14:23:56 UTC