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

Re: A very short list of residual datatyping issues (just one ;-)

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 16:11:37 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B8B3D939.10873%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-03-12 13:47, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>

> At 05:58 PM 3/11/02 +0000, Brian McBride wrote:
>>> 1. Union versus non-union interpretation of datatypes
>>> Overview of Issue:
>>> a) XML Schema associates a single URI with a datatype. That
>>>    URI denotes the entire datatype, not just its value space.
>>>    Stating that the URI only denotes the value space may be
>>>    considered contrary to the XML Schema usage and leaves
>>>    datatypes without a formally defined URI denoting the entire
>>>    datatype.
>> Thats issue 1.  Does the WG agree this is a problem.  I note that some
>> previous posts used xsdr:decimal for RDF references to schema datatype.
> I don't see this as a problem _unless_ we are trying to use the same names
> (URIs) as are defined by XML schema.

I certainly hope so!  Otherwise, how do we support the use of
XML Schema with datatyping in RDF?

> And if we are trying to us the same
> names, we're in danger of trampling on someone else's lawn,

Exactly. Major trampling, with big boots ;-)

> and that's an 
> issue to be resolved separately from the model theory.


(I didn't see this as a problem with the MT of the
proposal, but with the assumption made by the proposal
that datatype URIs denote only the value spaces, which
is simply reflected in the MT).

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, 12 March 2002 09:09:39 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:10 UTC