In the TAG/Schema discussion of abstractComponentRefs-37 and
XML Schema component designators in March 2004...
http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
... I gave a use case, referring to user-defined datatypes from OWL
ontologies, and proposed requiring support of barenames (e.g. #sku).
XML Schema component designators recently went to last call.
http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-ref/
<-
http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/issues.html?type=1#abstractComponentRefs-37
The last call design doesn't meet the barename requirement, so I
sent the attached comment.
The usecase can perhaps be accommodated without the requirement.
I don't know if there's any Web Architecture principle related to
my requirement, but I think the general principle of "keep
the simple things simple" applies.
I don't know if my comment is one that the TAG should take a position
on, but I encourage other TAG members and www-tag participants
to review the schema component designators spec and send comments.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E
Forwarded message 1
Please allow barename fragments to be used as schema component designator
right hand sides. For example #over17 in
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-walkthru-20011218/daml+oil-ex-dt#over17
If they're already allowed, please make it more clear that they
are; my reading of
3.1 Schema Component Designator Syntax
http://www.w3.org/TR/2005/WD-xmlschema-ref-20050329/
is that they're not.
We discussed this in March 2004...
[[
DC: Most pressing use case is pointing at user-defined datatypes. First
design that occurs to me is #sku. Why not?
MSM: Multiple top-level symbol spaces. #sku could be type, element,
attribute, notation, attribute groups, named model groups...
DC: OK, so don't do #sku to do that. Advise users to not have two
top-level things named the same.
...
]]
http://www.w3.org/2004/03/02-tag-summary.html#abstractComponentRefs-37
There seems to be little or no acknowledgement of the case
case of user-defined datatypes in OWL. The only thing I see is:
"RDF assertions about types, etc".
Please cite this section of the OWL recommendation among your
requiremenets...
"Because there is no standard way to go from a URI reference to an XML
Schema datatype in an XML Schema, there is no standard way to use
user-defined XML Schema datatypes in OWL."
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/REC-owl-semantics-20040210/syntax.html#2.1
And acknowledge this example from the DAML+OIL submission among
your use cases:
<xsd:simpleType name="over17">
<!-- over17 is an XMLS datatype based on positiveIntege -->
<!-- with the added restriction that values must be >= 18 -->
<xsd:restriction base="xsd:positiveInteger">
<xsd:minInclusive value="18"/>
</xsd:restriction>
</xsd:simpleType>
<daml:Class rdf:ID="Adult">
<daml:intersectionOf rdf:parseType="daml:collection">
<daml:Class rdf:about="#Person"/>
<daml:Restriction>
<daml:onProperty rdf:resource="#age"/>
<daml:hasClass rdf:resource="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-walkthru-20011218/daml+oil-ex-dt#over17"/>
</daml:Restriction>
</daml:intersectionOf>
</daml:Class>
-- http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/NOTE-daml+oil-walkthru-20011218/#9
I still can't see why the design chosen in DAML+OIL shouldn't be
standardized in the XML Schema Component designators spec, so as
I say, please change the design too.
--
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
D3C2 887B 0F92 6005 C541 0875 0F91 96DE 6E52 C29E