- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2003 08:41:14 +0200
- To: <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Cc: <GK@ninebynine.org>, <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 30 January, 2003 19:32 > To: Stickler Patrick (NMP/Tampere); pfps@research.bell-labs.com; > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > Cc: graham Klyne; Jeremy Carroll > Subject: RE: What is an RDF datatype? > > > At 17:54 30/01/2003 +0200, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote: > > [...] > > >Facets are not part of RDF Datatypes. > > My memory may be failing me, but I don't recall the WG > deciding this. Yes. Your memory is failing you ;-) RDF Datatyping has no concept of facets as they are defined by XML Schema. It only includes abstractions of a value space, a lexical space and an N:1 mapping from lexical to value space where N>=1. That's it. And that's compatible with all XML Schema datatypes (though not identical). Facets are mechanisms for defining the nature of the value space of an XML Schema datatype and RDF Datatyping is agnostic regarding how datatypes are defined. Only that they possess the above characteristics. Whether facets or any other mechanism is used to define a datatype is irrelevant to RDF Datatyping. Facets are XML Schema specific and have no definition in RDF Datatyping. > I'd > like to hear from the editors of the concepts doc before we > regard this as > a statement of the WG position. Fair enough, but with all due respect, if the editors were to disagree with the above, they would be mistaken. The recent wording claiming that RDF Datatyping *is* XML Schema datatyping is an editorial error, and one that I have pointed out several times before and has had no presence in any of the previous draft specs defining RDF Datatyping nor in any of the definitions of RDF Datatyping voted on and adopted by the WG. One should not base the presence of facets in RDF Datatyping on that erroneous statement (though it would be reasonable to do so, hence the seriousness of the error) and the statement must be fixed and the issue clarified further as needed. Regards, Patrick
Received on Friday, 31 January 2003 01:41:17 UTC