- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 26 Nov 2002 09:16:53 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Tue, 2002-11-26 at 08:51, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > I completed my investigation doc. > > See: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Nov/att-0092/02-index.ht > ml > > More important points are: > > - there are issues with the XSD document: most is clear, a small part is > clear in the opposite direction. Yes, clearly this text is inconsistent with other parts of the spec: | Note that a consequence of the above is that, given | ·value space· A and ·value space· B where A and B are not | related by ·restriction· or ·union·, for every pair of values | a from A and b from B, a != b. I'd like this WG to report our problems with that text. Failing that, I guess Jeremy and I can report it. > - types derived by restriction correspond to rdfs:subClassOf > - don't use xsd:QName, xsd:ENTITY, xsd:ENTITIES Amen. I came to that same conclusion in my investigation. http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/util/datatypes.n3 I found that all these were goofy: # dt:QName # omitted due to ambiguity # dt:NOTATION # omitted; DTD support not merited # NMTOKEN # NMTOKENS # ID # IDREF # IDREFS # ENTITY # ENTITIES some for more aesthetic than technical reasons, I suppose. > - even if we stick to the bits that are clear then implementation looks > hard. Yes; I didn't have this information when we made our 11Oct decision. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html (items 7 and 8) Though I was vaguely concerned... [[ I'm quite concerned that the rdf:datatype proposal is too complex to deal with in a timely manner; The sorts of questions Graham asks in his 30Sep message... http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0370.html could take quite a while to sort out. We really expect to get all this abstract syntax of integers/dates stuff right? ]] -- http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0031.html Likewise the 6Sep decision http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0081.html (item 10) I'm considering asking to reopen them. > Particularly any test that relies on finiteness of a datatype, or of an > intersection between datatypes. > > > Another hard entailment: > > _:a rdfs:subClassOf xsd:postiveInteger . > _:a rdfs:subClassOf xsd:byte . > > entails > > _:a rdfs:subClassOf xsd:unsignedLong . > > > (I don't think my paper helps much with that one). > > Jeremy > > > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 26 November 2002 10:16:51 UTC