- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 13 Nov 2002 10:14:57 -0600
- To: "Henry S. Thompson" <ht@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-11-13 at 10:09, Henry S. Thompson wrote: > As Pat and I have gone through, there are two separate issues here: > > 1) Value spaces -- they're sets alright, as you would hope and expect, > and their members are simple things _in the world_ such as numbers, > strings, booleans, URIs. yes, that's how I read the spec. > 2) The definition of certain aspects of schema-validity which appear > to appeal to values should actually be understood as appealing to > pairs of values and the type they are a member of. Thus the REC says > that (double)3 does not compare equal to (float)3, and > (string)my:aname does not compare equal to (anyURI)my:aname. Ah.. that makes sense... it's (a) consistent with how I read the specs and (b) explains what motivated PatH to note an anomaly in the RDF model theory spec. > (2) is _only_ relevant to W3C XML Schema internal processes, and > shouldn't get in the way of RDF using the types and their value > spaces, in my opinion. Yes, I agree; thanks for the quick clarification. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 13 November 2002 11:15:31 UTC