W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > May 2001

Re: QName Problem Isn't One

From: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Date: Sun, 06 May 2001 12:15:03 -0500
To: Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net>, RDF Interest <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B71AF0C6.AD54%aswartz@swartzfam.com>
Danny Ayers <danny@panlanka.net> wrote:

> 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)

What more would there be than string types? DAML defines a usage of XML
Schema which works something like this:

    :Person :age [ a xsd:integer ; rdf:value "13" ] .

> It looks nicer with only the # different, but how does this improve on e.g.
> http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
> http://www.w3.org/2525/ifmanisstillalive

I don't follow.

> <- 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.

They're URIs -- If I say something is of type URI, then it's of type URI.
DAML defines the semantics of this, and this may also be rolled into RDF

[ Aaron Swartz | me@aaronsw.com | http://www.aaronsw.com ]
Received on Sunday, 6 May 2001 13:15:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:30 UTC