- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 25 Nov 2002 15:44:39 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Mon, 2002-11-25 at 13:51, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > > PS - the format proposal got thrown out because it can't do the job for > webont. It can and does do the job for webont, in my experience. > I think you need to address how to do cardinaliy constraints > without ever considering values What do you mean by that? > .... Yes, it is conceptually simpler, but > no, it isn't datatyping. It is datatyping to my satisfaction, and to the satisfaction of a number of other members of the WG. > Hmmm, format constrained to canonical forms would > cope with cardinality constraints ... You don't even have to constraint it to canonical forms; you can just note that "10" and "010" are different, and note that folks should avoid "010" when writing a numeral. > we could make it part of the concrete > syntax to abstract syntax mapping that lexical forms were canonicalized, > then we could avoid thinking about values. no, just make it best practice to use canonical lexical forms. > This would give us yet another > version of equality, which differed even more from that in XML schema. > I don't think we can duck the problems. I don't see any problems. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 25 November 2002 16:45:48 UTC