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

RE: XML Schema WG's comments

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 12:25:29 +0200
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90BFC@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <GK@NineByNine.org>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Graham Klyne [mailto:GK@NineByNine.org]
> Sent: 11 March, 2003 13:35
> To: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: Re: XML Schema WG's comments
> 2.2 Suggestion to restrict the value space to those values 
> for which there 
> is a lexical form.  I cannot identify any problem with this, but I'm 
> uneasy.  I think it means that applications designers must be 
> aware of the 
> allowed lexical forms whenever using a datatype name as a 
> class name in 
> RDF.  I wonder if there is scope for surprises here?

I think the union case is decisive here (though depending on
how one squints, one could see each value having a lexical form,
even if the mapping is shadowed by that of a "preceeding"

In any case, I see no
reason why XML Schema cannot be more restrictive than RDF
with regards to datatypes. There may be other datatyping
frameworks which do not presume that all values have lexical
representatations, but which will work just fine with RDF.

> 2.4 Language tagging of strings is not enough for encoding natural 
> language.  I think this warrants discussion.  I think a 
> number of people 
> (including myself) are uneasy about the special treatment of 
> language tags 
> when there may be more elegant and comprehensive ways to achieve the 
> desired goals.


So many headaches would be cured if we just ignored xml:lang

Received on Monday, 17 March 2003 05:25:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:21 UTC