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

Re: Review semantics document (2002-12-13#7) - part 1

From: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>
Date: Thu, 16 Jan 2003 14:49:16 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Cc: RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


A belated response... just to say thanks;  I'd missed the bit in section 3, 
and that does make me more comfortable.  As for the schema, I guess it 
needs to be updated;  I suppose I should send a note to XML schema WG.


At 02:21 PM 12/31/02 -0500, Frank Manola wrote:
>Graham Klyne wrote:
>>[For discussion]
>>Section 0.2, Prefix xsd: namespace:
>>Maybe this is OK, but I think it should be checked.  Some time ago, DanC 
>>posted a "Get off my lawn" comment -- 
>>pointing out that folks shouldn't define URIs occupying namespaces that 
>>are controlled by some other group.
>>It's not clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form 
>>(e.g.) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal, since the concatenation 
>>convention is something introduced by RDF.  Also, the XML schema 
>>specification does not introduce a '#' into its namespace.  There has 
>>been some discussion about this issue, but I'm not sure that it's fully 
>>resolved;  it's not clear to me that the XML schema specs sanction use of 
>>(say) http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#decimal to denote an RDF datatype.
>I'm commenting on this because there've been comments on this before 
>concerning other documents (and Primer has similar material).  It seems 
>clear to me that the XML schema specs define URIs of the form in question, 
>because although the concatenation convention may be introduced by RDF, 
>the XML Schema datatypes spec (section 3) says explicitly "For example, to 
>address the int datatype, the URI is http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int" 
>(it also explicitly says to construct the URIs of datatypes by using the 
>base URI http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema, and the name of the datatype as 
>a fragment identifier).  I'm sure they don't care whether such URIs are 
>actually constructed using RDF's concatenation convention, or by some 
>other means, but they do say the URIs should be of that form.
>>Also, I note that the normative references cite XML schema part 2, but 
>>the document one gets by retrieving http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema 
>>refers to part 1 only.  I think this may be an omission in the document 
>>there rather than an error in this specification.
>I think there's a misunderstanding here.  if you go to the W3C XML Schema 
>page http://www.w3.org/XML/Schema, you'll see that the XML Schema specs 
>are published in three parts.  The third part, "XML Schema Part 2: 
>Datatypes", has URL http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/, which is the URL 
>our documents (including semantics) cite for XML Schema datatypes.  The 
>document at http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema supposedly describes the 
>http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema *namespace*.  However, it's dated several 
>months earlier than the actual specs, and it's not clear what official 
>status that actual page has.
>Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
>202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
>mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-875

Graham Klyne
Received on Thursday, 16 January 2003 12:21:17 UTC

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