W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2003

RE: attempting to remove confusion RE: designating datatypes

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 09:17:31 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90BE9@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 27 February, 2003 14:50
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: attempting to remove confusion RE: designating datatypes
> Another possible test case -
> as far as I can tell
> xsd:NCName and xsd:ID have the same L, V and L2V, but have 
> different names.
> In OWL Full (which admittedly is not our problem), under the 
> LC document we
> would have had:
> xsd:NCName owl:sameIndividualAs xsd:ID .
> being a consistent document.
> With the current editor's draft the same document is inconsistent.

You mean the new proposal where the URI becomes part of the MT
machinery, so that a D-interpretation takes into consideration
the URI denoting the datatype?

If so, then thanks for this additional example, as this was exactly 
my point and my concern about the proposal.

If two URIrefs denote the same datatype, for whatever reason, the
MT shouldn't care. It should only care about the datatypes themselves,
not what name is used to denote them.

Received on Friday, 28 February 2003 02:17:35 UTC

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