Re: new syntax for datatypes

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