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

Re: RDFCore WG: Datatyping documents

From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:37:30 -0500
Message-ID: <07cb01c1a8da$df4a7420$0a2e249b@nemc.org>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "RDF Interest" <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Cc: "RDF Comments" <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
Patrick Stickler wrote:

> On 2002-01-28 17:42, "ext Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net> wrote:
> > Patrick Stickler wrote:
> You're missing my question. If the URI is the *correct* URI,
> not a new one, not one with redefined semantics, but the actual,
> single XML Schema defined URI for the datatype, would that be
> OK?

If you are using the defined URI _and assuming the defined semantics_ then
certainly that would be "OK"


When you state:

rdfdt:integer daml:equivalentTo xsd:integer

You effectively equate the entire RDF DT and XML Schema datatype
"ontologies" unless you are careful (and let me know precisely how you solve
this problem).

Said another way: "equivalent semantics" implies:

RDF DT "semantics" = XML Schema "semantics" (i.e.

Or peraps you mean "XQuery 1.0 formal semantics"
http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/ or "XQuery 1.0 data model"

What is the relationship between the RDF DT model and these formal models? I
think it is important to answer this question because alot of very pertinent
and good work has gone into the documents I reference (IMHO).

In any case: do you adopt these semantics?

Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:39:21 UTC

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