On 2002-02-02 1:23, "ext Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu> wrote: > I agree with your point. The trouble of using those genuine XML > datatypes is that the XSD document introduces those URIs for datatypes > as a whole, which are some kind of complex abstract objects. > Specifically, datatypes are defined as 3-tuples, so that the URI like > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int effectively denotes a 3-tuple, but > not the value space or lexical space of the datatype. But one does not need to reference these spaces directly by URI to provide a consistent and reliable interpretation of the literal (lexical form). > Some datatyping schemes and idioms that are currently under > consideration require explicit identifiers for say value spaces. Some, but not all. [Shall we continue to speak in hints or give these proposals their proper names?] > For > this reason, I introduced URIs like > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#int.val in [1]. Using such URIs would > be "politically correct" only if the authors of the XSD spec assign them > explicitly the meaning we think they should carry - in fact, maybe we > (the RDFCoreWG) could ask them to do so, or they could authorize us? Why go to all that trouble if it is not necessary? Why make the world more complicated than it has to be? > > [1] http://www-db.stanford.edu/~melnik/rdf/datatyping/ http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/TDL.html Cheers, Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.comReceived on Sunday, 3 February 2002 05:12:15 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:34 UTC