RE: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

Jonathan said: "Please do not bind the "xsd" prefix to the
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#
namespace name."

As a result of this Sergey said: "I'm going to replace xsd: by rdfdt: in the
next revision of the document."

Please let us not forget that the prefix 'xsd' is purely conventional and
has no semantics except when related to an xmlns attribute. It is perfectly
correct for RDF data types to associate xsd with
http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# though, as Jonathan says, potentially
confusing (though its not obvious to me who would be confused - I can't
believe more than a handful of programmers are ever going to see XML
serializations of RDF schemas using XML Schema data types. Most of us will
use tools to create these schemas or give up).

John Schlesinger
SysCore Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-rdf-interest-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Frank Manola
Sent: Friday, February 01, 2002 1:59 PM
To: Sergey Melnik
Cc: Uche Ogbuji; Jonathan Borden; Jeremy Carroll;
www-rdf-interest@w3.org; www-rdf-comments@w3.org;
www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org; Dan Connolly
Subject: Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents


For the benefit of the uneducated among us, would you care to explain
this a bit more fully?  To the extent that RDF Core truly introduces new
concepts, it certainly should label them using an RDF namespace.
However, if RDF wants to use values that have genuine XML datatypes
(especially if those values are going to be represented in RDF's XML
syntax), why should we not say "xsd:integer" rather than
"rdfdt:integer"?  I'm not talking now about datatypes that are "sort of
like" XML datatypes, but are really and truly XML datatypes (as is, I
believe, what we're trying to do).  What's the point of having URIs if
you have to invent new ones in order to refer to what is supposed to be
the same concept from a different language?  Talk about a "chaos of
namespaces and architectures"!

--Frank


Sergey Melnik wrote:
>
> 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
> document.
snip
>
> 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.
> >
snip
> > >
> > > i..e. just don't call it "xsd:integer" rather "rdfdt:integer"
> >


--
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752

Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 09:58:51 UTC