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

Re: xsd:float and xsd:decimal

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 22 Nov 2002 14:20:11 -0600
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1037996413.28129.208.camel@dirk>

On Fri, 2002-11-22 at 13:06, Brian McBride wrote:
> At 11:52 22/11/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >Please include this in the test stuite.
> Lets not.
> Why are we creating such dependencies between RDF and xml schema.

Umm... because we're chartered to?

"RDF Schema must use and build upon XML Schema datatypes
to the fullest extent that is practical and appropriate."
  -- http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter

>  The RDF 
> test cases should test rdf.  Lets keep to any dependencies of subtle 
> aspects of xml schema datatypes out of it.

On the contrary! Let's be absolutely clear about which
parts of the schema spec we depend on and which we don't.

This isn't a question about how XML Schema works;
it's about how our datatypes design integrates
with XML Schema.

If Jeremy and I have not convinced the WG that this is how
XML Schema works, questions from those who doubt it
should "be referred to the authorities
who defined the datatypes", i.e. www-xml-schema-comments.

If the WG doesn't agree that this is how our datatypes
design works with XML Schema, somebody will please
explain to me how it does work, preferably with
an explanation that includes a few test cases.

>  This point seems to be subtle 
> enough to have misled DanC.

That argues that it deserves a test case, no?

>  And lets not give ourselves any more work than 
> we have to.  We are a little short of time after all.

If we don't have time to do this design work, let's please
re-open the datatypes decision and re-consider rdfs:format

This rdfs:datatype design is complex; it deserves lots
of test cases. I'm not interested in doing it
half way.

> Dan, if you want this to go into an rdf test suite, I'd like to see a 
> compelling reason why its necessary for RDF.

First, to be clear, by RDF, I presume you mean to include
RDFS and datatypes; I don't claim this test is
necessary for RDF per se.

Then, as I say: I think this rdfs:datatype design is complex;
I can't support a request to take this design to Proposed
Recommendation until I have seen enough implementation
experience (i.e. test cases) to validate the design.

Perhaps that's not compelling.

And if push came to shove, I'd accept that a
the base64binary/hexBinary test case I gave
actually tests the same thing that this
test case does.

But when it comes to test cases, the more
the merrier, no?

>  The XML schema guys can do 
> their own.

I am an XML Schema guy; please let's not make this
an us-versus-them thing.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Friday, 22 November 2002 15:20:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:18 UTC