- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 Nov 2002 09:30:38 +0200
- 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. Dan, 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... Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 27 November 2002 02:30:50 UTC