- From: Stefan Decker <stefan@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Wed, 16 Feb 2000 22:59:25 -0800
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org
Hi,
>I suppose we could use
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xmlschema-2-19991217/#boolean
I'am currently using URIs like these for the Protege/RDF implementation.
So i would be happy with this.
>for the value of the rdf:range property, but that doesn't work
>for user-defined derived types.
Why should i want user-defined types?
Complex types can be defined using the RDF-mechanisms.
Using user-defined types based on XML-Schema means, every
RDF-processor has also to include more sophisticated XML-Schema
capabilities? Why the effort?
Do i miss something?
CU,
Stefan
>The schema spec provides an answer of sorts:
>
>"we observe that
>[XPointer] provides a mechanism which maps well onto our notion of
>symbol spaces.
>An fragment identifier of the form
>#xpointer(schema/element[@name="person"]) will
>uniquely identify the element declaration with name person, and similar
>fragment
>identifiers can obviously be constructed for the other top-level symbol
>spaces."
>http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xmlschema-1-19991217/#ref-schema
>
>Is that good enough?
>
>
>The schema specs also include:
>
>"RDF Schema
> XML Schema: Structures has not yet documented requirements or
> dependencies. See [Cambridge Communiqué] for a clarification of the
> relationship between the two, which includes requirements arising
>from web
> architecture considerations. "
> http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/WD-xmlschema-1-19991217/#intro-relatedWork
>
>but I don't see anything in the Cambridge Communiqué that's relevant.
>
>The Cambridge Communiqué
>W3C NOTE 7 October 1999
>http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/NOTE-schema-arch-19991007
>
>
>--
>Dan Connolly
>http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 17 February 2000 02:07:58 UTC