- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 07:32:41 +0000
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Jonathan, This mailing list for members of the RDFCore WG. If you have comments/questions you'd like to send, please use www-rdf-comments@w3.org. At 22:05 28/10/2002 -0500, Jonathan Borden wrote: >Concerning the WebOnt issue regarding "Structured Datatypes" >http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues-071902.html#I4.3-Structured-D >atatypes, it looks like WebOnt is running out of time to be able to create a >"deep" understanding of XML datatypes. > >I am wondering if a clarification of RDF datatypes might provide us an >interim solution. We too are very short of time. I think webont is further ahead than we are and it is dependent on us. I do not intend to allow starting discussion on new issues unless it is absolutely unavoidable to complete the work we have already done. >The current RDF datatypes proposal seems to consider so-called "simple" XML >Schema datatypes e.g. > ><rdf:Description> > <ex:foo rdf:datatype="&xsd;integer">10</ex:foo> ></rdf:Description> > >might this also work for "XML" datatypes i.e. fragments of XML that are >valid with respect to a "complex" XML Schema datatype e.g. > ><rdf:Description> > <ex:foo rdf:datatype="&foo;bar"> > <this> is a simple structured datatype</this> > </ex:foo> ></rdf:Description> > >where &foo;bar identifies an XML Schema particule analogous to the XML >datatype <!ELEMENT this (#PCDATA)> > >If this is already allowed, I will propose that WebOnt close our issue and >if its not something currently allowed, do RDF Core folk consider this >useful? It is not currently allowed. Dave, correct me if I'm wrong. We don't allow combining rdf:datatype and parseType="Literal" do we? It may be useful but that is a matter for a future WG. I could add it to our list of postponed issues if you like. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 02:30:29 UTC