Re: added diagrams to "Using XML Schema Data Types..."

From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/07/01


"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote:
> 
> It appears to me that Dan's proposal is to turn every property (that has a
> datatype as its type) into two properties, one that maps into the string
> and one that maps into the datum corresponding to the string.  (Maybe the
> proposal is even to have multiple properties, one that maps into the
> string, and one that maps into a datatype reading of that string, for every
> possible datatype.)
> 
> I would be much happier with a solution that had a single property, namely
> size, that mapped directly into a datatype.  I don't see any benefits from
> having these multiple properties; only disadvantages.

The advantage is that parsing formulas (RDF documents)
remains independent of other stuff, including trust issues.

Otherwise, if I put the range(size, Decimal) information in
in file X, and then I <size>10</size> in file Y,
the interpretation of Y depends on whether I have seen
(or believed etc.) file X. That doesn't seem workable to me.

I might like a simpler solution too, but I don't see how
it can be done.

> Further, it appears to me that Dan's proposal breaks RDF in a very
> significant fashion, requiring literals (or at least datatype values) to be
> the source of properties.

I don't see this as breaking RDF. It's always been
the case that you could look at the string "xyz"
as the resource data:,xyz and use it as the subject
of an assertion.

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
office: tel:+1-913-491-0501
pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org
  (put return phone number in from/subject)


This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST