W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > February 2002

Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 10:57:41 -0800
Message-ID: <3C5AE525.2C98FF80@db.stanford.edu>
To: Uche Ogbuji <uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com>
CC: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org, www-rdf-comments@w3.org, www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Janathan, Uche, DanC,

thank you for identifying the problem (I do remember DanC's posting
related to grazing on someone else's grass ;)

I'm going to replace xsd: by rdfdt: in the next revision of the


E-Mail:      melnik@db.stanford.edu (Sergey Melnik)
WWW:         http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik
Tel:         OFFICE: 1-650-725-4312 (USA)
Address:     Room 438, Gates, Stanford University, CA 94305, USA

Uche Ogbuji wrote:
> > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0131/01-RDF_Data
> > > typing.htm
> >
> > I am concerned that this document  element names into the XML Schema
> > namespace. It seems to me that concepts that RDFCore introduces should be
> > labelled by an RDF namespace. It seems to me that the XML Schema namespace
> > should be reserved for XML elements and URIs introduced by this WG.
> I agree with this, but I'd go farther.  I think that even though RDFCore is
> not chartered to come up with a new data typing scheme, that they should
> consider defining XSD data types using URIs under the control of RDFCore, and
> providing a simple and normartive mapping between these and the XSD data types.
> I think that given the current chaos of namespaces and architectures in the
> W3C, that this is the only safe approach for consistency *within* the RDF
> space.
> > On the other hand this draft seems to do a much better job of defining
> > datatypes in an independent fashion to XML Schema, yet using the same
> > concepts, so I suspect that simply changing how the concepts are named will
> > be an effective solution. Whether this can still be called "XML Schema
> > datatypes" will remain to be seen, but nonetheless, the solution will be
> > compatible with XML Schema datatypes:
> >
> > i..e. just don't call it "xsd:integer" rather "rdfdt:integer"
> I think this is similar to what I'm trying to say above.
> --
> Uche Ogbuji                               Principal Consultant
> uche.ogbuji@fourthought.com               +1 303 583 9900 x 101
> Fourthought, Inc.                         http://Fourthought.com
> 4735 East Walnut St, Boulder, CO 80301-2537, USA
> XML strategy, XML tools (http://4Suite.org), knowledge management
Received on Friday, 1 February 2002 13:28:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:34 UTC