- From: Jonathan Borden <jborden@mediaone.net>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 10:37:30 -0500
- 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" HOWEVER 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. http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-formal/) Or peraps you mean "XQuery 1.0 formal semantics" http://www.w3.org/TR/query-semantics/ or "XQuery 1.0 data model" http://www.w3.org/TR/query-datamodel/ 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? Jonathan
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 10:39:21 UTC