Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

On 2002-02-02 1:23, "ext Sergey Melnik" <> 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
> 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

> 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
> 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]


Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email:

Received on Sunday, 3 February 2002 05:12:15 UTC