- 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