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

RE: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: John F Schlesinger <johns@syscore.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 13:54:55 -0500
To: "Manos Batsis" <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>, "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>
Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
I said: "It is perfectly correct for RDF data types to associate xsd with

Manos said: "Nope, it is definitely not correct. See [1]..."

Here is what [1] says:

"To facilitate usage in specifications other than the XML Schema definition
language, such as those that do not want to know anything about aspects of
the XML Schema definition language other than the datatypes, each .built-in.
datatype is also defined in the namespace whose URI is:

There is nothing in the XML Schema recommendation about the namespace I was
referring to (http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#). This is not the same
namespace. Namespaces are the same if they are character for character the
same (see Jonathan's original point).

So I stand by what I wrote.

John F Schlesinger
SysCore Solutions

-----Original Message-----
From: Manos Batsis [mailto:m.batsis@bsnet.gr]
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2002 4:13 AM
To: Jonathan Borden; johns@syscore.com
Cc: www-rdf-interest@w3.org; www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Subject: RE: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

> John F Schlesinger wrote:
> > Jonathan said: "Please do not bind the "xsd" prefix to the

> > Please let us not forget that the prefix 'xsd' is purely
> conventional and
> > has no semantics except when related to an xmlns attribute.

Absolutely. However:

>>It is
> perfectly
> > correct for RDF data types to associate xsd with
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#

Nope, it is definitely not correct. See [1], the URI you mention is to
be used by XML Schema itself to refer to it's build in datatypes.
The XML Schema spec explicitly gives a URI for an XML application other
than itself to use it's build in datatypes, that URI is


So, to use the Int type in a language other than XSD one must use
something like the following:


I believe the prefix is an irrelevant subject, as long as known prefixes
are not used; using a widely used prefix (although perfectly legal) may
cause confusion.
One thing that worries me is the notation of facets; I don't know how
common this is but I guess it should be accepted by a WG since it's
inside a recommendation.

Finally, there is the subject of Type Libraries [2], that are far more

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#namespaces
[2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#Libs

Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 13:55:45 UTC

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