- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Nov 2002 13:04:50 -0600
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, ext Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 12:41, Brian McBride wrote: > At 10:15 25/11/2002 -0600, Dan Connolly wrote: > >On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 09:42, Brian McBride wrote: > >[...] > > > 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 > > > >As I explained earlier, I disagree with shying away from > >contraversial issues that are relevant to our design, i.e. > >keeping them out of the test suite. > > I wasn't shying away from it, I was trying to avoid a last call dependency > on it. > > However, you are pretty serious about this. I'm serious about seeing that C/rdf:datatype is done right, if it's done at all. You will recall that it's not my preferred option. I think that rdfs:format is a lot less work. > It seems to me that what we need, as well as test cases, is an RDF Schema > for XML Schema datatypes. If we are going to expect an xsd datatypes aware > processor to be aware of the class hierarchy, ??? where does that come from? > someone should write down > definitively what it is. > > DanC, would you be willing to take an action to: > > 1 write an RDF Schema for XSD datatypes > 2 Define a set of test cases to illustrate that schema and the datatype > entailment rules > 3 Verify that RDF Schema and the test cases with the XML Schema folks > 4 Bring the schema and test cases back to RDFCore for review > Brian -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 14:05:54 UTC