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

At 12:36 PM -0500 6/23/03, Dan Connolly wrote:
>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.


This chair (who is making up the agenda) must admit to a certain 
confusion - what in Peter's response is inconsistent with our 
decision?  That is, I don't see what is inconsistent with our 
decision to accept parts 1,2,  and 5 of [1]


>
>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.



anyway, before I can reconsider the issue, I'm not sure what the 
distinction is (or are you postulating we could adopt Jeff's 
suggestion and use the user-defined type as he proposes, despite 
Peter's response)?

I'm not trying to be contentious, I'm really just confused
>
>
>oops; did I ever do this?
>"NEW ACTION Dan - to communicate with XML schema group about URIs for
>XML datatypes."?

I believe that was withdrawn at some point (my personal notes say it 
was either going to be a tag or CG issue) - but I don't see that in a 
recorded minutes, so not sure why I came to believe that


  -JH


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


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2002Nov/0265.html

-- 
Professor James Hendler				  hendler@cs.umd.edu
Director, Semantic Web and Agent Technologies	  301-405-2696
Maryland Information and Network Dynamics Lab.	  301-405-6707 (Fax)
Univ of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742	  *** 240-277-3388 (Cell)
http://www.cs.umd.edu/users/hendler      *** NOTE CHANGED CELL NUMBER ***