RE: QName Problem Isn't One

<- I agree, the suggestion was to use the XML Schema URIs on typed nodes,
<- creating nodes with the type of an XML Schema datatype. This is perfectly
<- reasonable, as these URIs are defined as being able to do just
<- that in the
<- XML Schema spec.

but where do the data types specified in XML Schema figure in the RDF spec?
(apart from the basic XML syntax - presumably you're talking about more than
string types)

<- > <- The main point -- that the same URI is used for the same
<- concept -- is
<- > <- resolved. The secondary point -- that a different namespace is
<- > <- used in each
<- > <- document -- is done correctly, since to use the same namespace would
<- > <- needlessly confuse processors.
<- >
<- > this sounds rather contradictory to me, as though you're saying that
<- >
<- >
<- >
<- >
<- > are both the same and different. Ok, some systems might
<- interpret them the
<- > same way and others differently, but that's not quite the same thing.
<- No, I'm saying that they are both differently, and should be used
<- differently. Some insist that for RDF and XML Schema to work
<- together, they
<- must be the same thing. I was simply making my difference of
<- opinion clear.

It looks nicer with only the # different, but how does this improve on e.g.

<- The fact that XML Schema gives the datatypes URIs. If we were to say X
<- rdf:type Y and Y was a datatype, I think the semantics are rather clear.
<- (Using them as properties is something else entirely.)

I think you'd have to be a little clearer than that. If Y was an RDF Class,
then ok, but the data types specified in XML Schema aren't. Don't get me
wrong, if the ability to specify types as XML Schema can't be brought in
painlessly, then great, we could lose a lot of limitations.

Perhaps you could provide an example.

Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 13:01:27 UTC