RE: type not specializable [was: datatypes status

Thanks, Dan. That's what I thought. That seems to rule out
using xsi:type.

Patrick

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org]
> Sent: 31 August, 2002 00:17
> To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere)
> Cc: Brian McBride; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: xsi:type not specializable [was: datatypes status
> 
> 
> On Fri, 2002-08-16 at 03:16, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> [...]
> > To that end, I have a question that I've yet to find an answer
> > to in my own diggings around: Is it possible to equate rdf:type
> > with xsi:type in an XML Schema in a similar fashion to 
> > rdfs:subPropertyOf, so that an XML Schema validator would
> > recognize rdf:type as synonymous with xsi:type?
> 
> No, it's not extensible that way.
> 
> http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-1/#xsi_type
> 
> > If so, then
> > there's no reason not to go with rdf:type. If not, then even
> > though it feels a bit icky, I could be persuaded to go with
> > xsi:type, and then define formally in the RDF MT that xsi:type
> > is rdfs:subPropertyOf rdf:type to tie it into the RDF typing
> > semantics.
> > 
> > Eh?
> 
> No, don't go there either. xsi:type makes sense (to me)
> as part of the syntax of a literal; it doesn't
> make sense (to me) as a subPropertyOf rdf:type;
> we don't want parsers to have to theorem-proving
> to distinguish one literal for another.
> That's sorta the point of literals: you can see,
> just by looking, whether they denote the same
> thing or not.
> 
> -- 
> Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
> 
> 
>

Received on Sunday, 1 September 2002 02:02:22 UTC