- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 15:42:52 +0000
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 11:03 25/11/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] >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. yes. Sorta. I'll take your word for it there is a problem with XML Schema datatypes, but I'd rather we focussed our attention and efforts on the RDF issues we have. >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. Yes. >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 . Oh I hope that's a type. If Schema doesn't agree to that we are in trouble. Did you mean something like xsd:integer 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. YES. >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. I think this is a good approach. I think I find myself agreeing strongly with Patrick here. We need to balance two things: o getting finished o making sure we don't ignore signs of serious problems My interpretation of where we are at is: o We have a datatyping model for RDF o There are some subtlties of specific schema datatypes that we have not yet worked out but they do not call the general model into question. As Patrick, says whether xsd:float is a subclass of xsd:double is a matter for the xsd guys to define. o I'm sympathetic to us having worked this stuff out in some detail for xsd datatypes to check that there are no hidden gotchas, but I think that may take some time and need us to work with xml schema folks. o I suggest: - we use non controversial examples of schema datatypes in our test cases - stay away from the stuff that tests understanding of schema datatypes more than rdf - we propose through the coordination group the writing of note jointly by folks from rdfcore and xml schema datatypes which defines the RDF schema for XML Schema datatypes. - that we write that note after last call and before proposed rec Comments? Brian
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 10:41:38 UTC