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

Re: More on XSD in RDF

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 11:03:04 +0200
Message-ID: <002f01c29461$7764f9c0$4b9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Excellent summary, Jeremy. And this definitely touches on my concerns about
the basis being used for certain entailment tests involving relations between
datatypes -- as to where those relationships are defined and whether those
relationships sync with the RDF definition for rdfs:Datatype.

My impression is that while there is evidently a problem with equality in XML Schema
simple datatypes, it is not per se a problem with RDF Datatyping. 

I.e., it should be sufficient to (a) note the problems in XML Schema and (b) submit
suggestions to the XML Schema WG, but I don't see how this impacts the current
RDF datatyping model.

If XML Schema says that xsd:float and xsd:decimal have disjunct value spaces,
we may wish to disagree and consider that a bug, but that doesn't affect how
those datatypes are modeled in RDF. It simply means that the assertion

   xsd:decimal rdfs:subClassOf xsd:decimal .

(and/or visa versa) is (possibly) in conflict with the XML Schema spec. 
So what. That's not RDF's problem and RDF is not creating the problem.
If the XML Schema spec says "1.0"^^xsd:decimal != "1.0"^^xsd.float  (and
my understanding is that it does say this) then applications should respect 
that if they are using those datatypes.

If the XML Schema datatype relations are either broken or ill defined, then fix them.

The RDF datatyping model is then providing a benefit to the XML community by
shining a light on the problem.



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 25 November, 2002 10:18
Subject: More on XSD in RDF

> I was looking over XSD again.
> It seems to me as though the recommendation to use XSD within RDF raises 
> more questions than we have currently been considering. IMO, it may knock 
> us off target (and probably should).
> I have begun working on what I think would be a set of answers ...
> See:
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/
> or maybe (the supposedly equal)
> http://sealpc09.cnuce.cnr.it/jeremy/xsd-rdf-2002-11-25/index2.html
> (I have a stylesheet issue - in the tables red text may only come out in 
> purple with a strikethrough, whereas the green text comes out in purple 
> without the strikethrough).
> Jeremy
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 04:03:16 UTC

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