- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 10:11:29 +0300
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jonathan@openhealth.org>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
_____________Original message ____________
Subject: WebOnt: Structured Datatypes
Sender: ext Jonathan Borden <jonathan@openhealth.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 09:18:17 +0300
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.
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?
This would need to include the parseType specification,
but yes, I have considered this both intuitive and reasonable
for quite some time, and I understand that the present
datatyping solution either already supports this, or has the
pieces in place to do so with minor tweaks.
Jeremy? Dave? Did typed XML literals actually make it into
the RDF/XML and graph syntax? (I've lost track...)
Patrick
Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 03:14:34 UTC