Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

> > 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 

> 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               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
Fourthought, Inc.                
4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
XML strategy, XML tools (, knowledge management

Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 13:14:11 UTC