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

Re: Yet more XSD/RDF

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:30:38 +0200
Message-ID: <008301c295e6$e1faec50$4b9316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

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

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 26 November, 2002 17:16
Subject: Re: Yet more XSD/RDF

> I'm considering asking to reopen them.


The correct way to fix this problem, is not to dumb down
RDF datatyping so that it doesn't do datatyping at all (and
lexical-only constraints is *not* datatyping) but rather to
publish a Note which clarifies the aspects that are unclear
controversial, or unspecified in the XML Schema spec, both
as a guide to users as well as input to the XML Schema WG.

This Note could include both an RDF Schema defining the subclass
relations defined by XML Schema derivation as well as the
additional relations implicit in XML Schema but explict in Jeremy's
analysis -- as well as additional test cases for valid entailments,
even the hard ones, so that it is clear to implementers how 
datatype values for different XML Schema datatypes relate.

While I'm not completely happy with the final datatyping solution
insofar as inline literals are concerned, any removal of typed
literals and the ability to explicitly denote datatype values
and constrain property ranges to values of particular datatypes
will be met with intense opposition by Nokia, and I suspect
many others as well.

I suggest we don't go there...

Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 02:30:50 UTC

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