From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/15/01
Ian Horrocks wrote: > > Further to Peter's earlier email about the new proposal, I have now > updated the web site with the new language specification, semantics > and example files: > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML+OIL/Datatypes/ yes, this looks about right; by way of making the benefit of off-the-shelf RDF tools evident, here's a little diagram I consed up this afternoon... http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ctfigs/ex-ian.ps http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ctfigs/ex-ian.dot generated using http://www.rdfviz.org/ from http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ctfigs/ex-ian.daml which is a cleaned up excerpt from [dex] http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML+OIL/Datatypes/daml+oil+concrete-ex.daml Thursday, 15-Feb-01 16:31:02 GMT some comments: *** I think you should have a # at the end of xmlns:xsd ="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes" e.g. the full name of decimal is http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes#decimal not http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypesdecimal er... actually, the namespace name should be http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema# cf. Appendix A of Part 2 of the schema spec http://www.w3.org/TR/2000/CR-xmlschema-2-20001024/#schema and the discussion of it URIs for primitive datatypes and facets? Dan Connolly (Fri, Dec 15 2000) (esp Martin G's reply) cited from my notes on this stuff http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24 *** [dex] is not well-formed; you can only have one root element in an XML document. (yes, this sucks. yes, I'd like to change it. No, I don't expect a revision of XML 1.0 any time soon.) I'm not quite sure what you're trying to do with XML Schema stuff and RDF stuff in the same document, but this attempt doesn't work. *** There are a few xml-level typos. I highly recommend you use xmlwf to check things. I invoke it ala make from emacs's meta-x compile thingy to xml-wf-check all my XML stuff (XHTML, RDF, etc.) xmlwf is part of expat http://www.jclark.com/xml/expat.html ** This isn't how RDF 1.0 syntax works: <rdf:type rdf:resource="daml:UniqueProperty"/> In RDF 1.0, you have to spell out daml: longhand when you use it inside a resource attribute. *** hmm... should our cardinality propoerties now take numbers, rather than numerals, as their values? > After my recent reprimand I remembered to keep the previous version > online: > > http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/DAML+OIL/Datatypes-jan-01/ > > Regards, Ian -- 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