- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:57:41 -0800
- To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
- CC: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Janathan, Uche, DanC, thank you for identifying the problem (I do remember DanC's posting related to grazing on someone else's grass ;) I'm going to replace xsd: by rdfdt: in the next revision of the document. Sergey -- E-Mail: melnik@db.stanford.edu (Sergey Melnik) WWW: http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik Tel: OFFICE: 1-650-725-4312 (USA) Address: Room 438, Gates, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA Uche Ogbuji wrote: > > > 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 13:28:07 UTC