- From: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 11:08:02 -0700
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
- cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0131/01-RDF_Data > > typing.htm > > I am concerned that this document element names into the XML Schema > namespace. It seems to me that concepts that RDFCore introduces should be > labelled by an RDF namespace. It seems to me that the XML Schema namespace > should be reserved for XML elements and URIs introduced by this WG. I agree with this, but I'd go farther. I think that even though RDFCore is not chartered to come up with a new data typing scheme, that they should consider defining XSD data types using URIs under the control of RDFCore, and providing a simple and normartive mapping between these and the XSD data types. I think that given the current chaos of namespaces and architectures in the W3C, that this is the only safe approach for consistency *within* the RDF space. > On the other hand this draft seems to do a much better job of defining > datatypes in an independent fashion to XML Schema, yet using the same > concepts, so I suspect that simply changing how the concepts are named will > be an effective solution. Whether this can still be called "XML Schema > datatypes" will remain to be seen, but nonetheless, the solution will be > compatible with XML Schema datatypes: > > i..e. just don't call it "xsd:integer" rather "rdfdt:integer" I think this is similar to what I'm trying to say above. -- Uche Ogbuji Principal Consultant uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com +1 303 583 9900 x 101 Fourthought, Inc. http://Fourthought.com 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 13:14:11 UTC