W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-webont-wg@w3.org > June 2003

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

From: Jeff Z. Pan <pan@cs.man.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 20:05:46 +0100
Message-ID: <005801c33a83$9e79b910$6401a8c0@percival>
To: "Peter F. Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, <www-webont-wg@w3.org>


Thank you for your reply.

> > Do you mean the other built-in "XML" schema (instead of OWL schema)
> > datatypes?
> Yes, sorry for the typo.  This is correct in the editor's draft at
> http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/
> > And it is not clear to me where in RDF MT can I locate the
> > discussion about why the datatypes are problematic. It might be easier
> > the readers to follow if some more details (e.g. section number in the
> > MT document) are provided.
> A direct pointer will be included as soon as the RDF MT document is
> to include one.  For now, I have included the section number (5).

For the purposes of formal process, I find your response is satisfactory. I
would, however, be interested in continuing this discussion, which we might
perhaps move to the RDF-logic mailing list?

Jeff Z. Pan  ( http://DL-Web.man.ac.uk/ )
Computer Science Dept., The University of Manchester

> > 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.
> > It is good to have more than the built-in datatypes. However, it is not
> > clear to me how this "private understand" approach works.
> >
> > [1] http://www-db.research.bell-labs.com/user/pfps/owl/semantics/
> One possibility would be to use the above non-standard mechanism for
> user-defined XML Schema datatypes.  Communities could have a private
> understanding to treat URI references into XML Schema documents in this
> manner.
Received on Tuesday, 24 June 2003 14:56:10 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:04:46 UTC