- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 13:20:39 -0600
- To: www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org, www-rdf-logic@w3.org, joint-committee@daml.org
> From: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:01:39 -0000 [...] > > You're correct that the schema annotation says that the explicit xpointer > version of the URI is the 'correct' one. Personally I think I prefer the > shorthand. Perhaps you/we could raise this as an agenda item and try to get > it changed to be the shorthand version? I'm very interested to know how this turns out; I see that the chair proposes to decline our request, http://www.w3.org/2000/12/xmlschema-crcomments.html#datatype-uri but I don't see the final disposition/wg-decision. www-rdf-logic and joint-committee folks, if you have an opinion about whether #xpointer(id("date")) is acceptable, or whether it's an undue implementation burden, compared with #date, please speak up now. The implementation burden is something like what Sandro described: [[[ We can solve this easily for the standard datatypes by putting all the classes in some ontology, publishing the classes you've been using (and using a nicer identifier syntax). ]]] -- www-rdf-logic@w3.org from February 2001: a few issues with daml http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2001Feb/0091.html Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:42:07 GMT > Gudge > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org> > To: "Martin Gudgin" <marting@develop.com> > Cc: <www-xml-schema-comments@w3.org>; <joint-committee@daml.org> > Sent: Monday, December 18, 2000 3:36 PM > Subject: Re: URIs for primitive datatypes and facets? > > > > > > > Martin Gudgin wrote: > > [...] > > > >From Appendix A of Part 2[1] > > [...] > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#schema > > > > Thanks for the pointer. But... which is it? > > ...XMLSchema#date or ...XMLSchema#xpointer(id(date)) ? > > > > They're defined to mean the same thing, in the case of > > an XML representation of the schema, but I'm looking > > for opaque identifiers. > > > > My reading of the spec says it's the latter > > (ugh!). > > > > > Data type URI > > > > > > string http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#string > > > boolean http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#boolean > > > float http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#float > > > double http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#double > > > decimal http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#decimal > > > timeDuration http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#timeDuration > > > > or > > > > > For example, to address the date datatype, the URI is: > > > > > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#xpointer(id("date")) > > > > ? > > > > > Hope this helps, > > > > Quite a bit; thanks! > > > > > Gudge > > > > > > [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#schema > > > > -- > > Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Saturday, 17 February 2001 14:20:45 UTC