Re: proposed response to Jeff Pan's response of 23 June concerning datatypes

I don't think this is an editorial matter...

On Mon, 2003-06-23 at 12:11, Peter F. Patel-Schneider wrote:
[...]
> > > 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 in OWL.
> > 
> > I am not sure about this. Usually a URI reference of this form
> > http://any.domainname/anyxsdfile.xsd#sss will be understood to denote a
> > user-defined XML Schema datatype named sss.  Even though it is not a
> > standard way in XML Schema, there is no harm adding that in OWL (implicitly
> > require that the datatype sss be derived from one of the built-in OWL
> > datatypes). Or do we want to support more datatypes than XML Schema
> > datatypes, so we don't like the file extension xsd?
> 
> Unfortunately, this would be a non-standard access mechanism.  The OWL
> specifications should not depend on this mechanism.  Also, consider what
> would happen if the XSD file had both a top-level datatype and a top-level
> attribute with this name.

The WG made a relevant decision, no?

Yes... on issue 5.8 datatypes, Dec 12
http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/WebOnt/webont-issues.html#I5.8-Datatypes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Dec/0205.html

So there's a question of whether Jeff Pan's comment constitutes
sufficient new information to re-open the decision.

I don't feel confident speaking for the chairs on this matter,
so I can't authorize you to send this on behalf of the WG,
Peter.

Jim/Guus, please consider this; some options I see:

 --  let us know before sending out this week's agenda that
  you don't see sufficient information to open it, or 

 -- re-open the issue and put it on this week's agenda

 -- put it on this week's agenda to solicit advice about
  reopening it, or to discuss the response, or whatever.


oops; did I ever do this?
"NEW ACTION Dan - to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for
XML datatypes."?

Hmm...


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/

Received on Monday, 23 June 2003 13:35:45 UTC