- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2001 09:10:28 -0500
- To: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com
- Cc: geoff@sover.net, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
From: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:11:11 +0200 > > -----Original Message----- > > From: ext Peter F. Patel-Schneider > > Sent: 22 November, 2001 18:35 > > > > From: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net> > > Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot > > Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 08:42:30 -0500 > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org > > > > [mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Peter F. > > > > Patel-Schneider > > > > Sent: Wednesday, November 21, 2001 1:34 PM > > > > > > > > An RDF/XML serialization of an RDF graph element of the form > > > > < s , p , v > for v a data value > > > > is of the form > > > > <... s ...> > > > > ... > > > > <p xsi:type="du">x</p> > > > > ... > > > > </...> > > > > where d is some datatype with URI du > > > > for which v in DTC(d) and x is a lexical form for v in d. > > > > > > If you're going to put the mapping in the parsing, why not just use > > > 'parseType=' to make clear it's a parser directive? > > > > Precisely because XML Schema has a perfectly good way of > > doing it, so why > > not use that way? > > Because, although we definitely want to ensure that RDF is fully > compatible with, and takes advantage of the existing XML Schema > data types, we cannot and should not preclude nor discriminate > against the use of other data typing schemes which are not > defined in XML Schema. That's not an anti-XML Schema position > (I'm actually very much pro-XML Schema). So how does this preclude other datatyping schemes. You could have a different datatyping scheme, instead of XML Schema, pointed to by the "du" above. > I don't read the charter as saying that RDF must use XML Schema > data type *definition mechanisms*. Only that it should make best > use of XML Schema defined data types. Those are not quite the > same thing. Maybe not, but what would be the rationale for not using it? You gets lots of benefits, including the ability to use existing XML Schema software. > Cheers, > > Patrick peter
Received on Saturday, 24 November 2001 09:12:30 UTC