Fwd: submission from [Roland Schwaenzl <[email protected]>]

From: Joseph Coffman ([email protected])
Date: 11/26/01


>From: [email protected]
>X-Recipient: <[email protected]>
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:48:47 -0500 (EST)
>X-Authentication-Warning: mail.daml.org: majordom set sender to 
>[email protected] using -f
>To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: BOUNCE [email protected]:    Non-member submission 
>from [Roland Schwaenzl <[email protected]>]
>
> >From majordomo-owner Thu Nov 22 10:48:45 2001
>Received: from omecihuatl.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de 
>(omecihuatl.rz.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE [131.173.17.35])
>         by mail.daml.org (8.10.2+Sun/8.10.2) with ESMTP id fAMFmjK07881
>         for <[email protected]>; Thu, 22 Nov 2001 10:48:45 -0500 (EST)
>Received: from scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE 
>(scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE [131.173.15.40])
>         by omecihuatl.rz.uni-osnabrueck.de (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id 
> fAMFjMf11578;
>         Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:45:22 +0100
>Received: (from roland@localhost)
>         by scarlett.mathematik.Uni-Osnabrueck.DE (8.8.8/8.8.8) id QAA03434;
>         Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:45:21 +0100 (MET)
>Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2001 16:45:21 +0100 (MET)
>From: Roland Schwaenzl <[email protected]>
>Message-Id: <[email protected]>
>To: [email protected], [email protected]
>Subject: RE: Cutting the Patrician datatype knot
>Cc: [email protected], [email protected]
>X-Sun-Charset: US-ASCII
>
>
> >
> > No.  I'm proposing that the end result be much more like
> >
> >       s --p--> xsd:du:x
>
>puuh! Hiding semantics in ascii-art.
>
>
> >
> > > Though, why use xsi:type rather than rdf:type? Are we saying
> > > that a typed literal resource is a different kind of resource
> > > than a typed non-literal resource, and hence the typing is
> > > declared differently? Are we sure we want to say that? And
> > > are we adopting the full semantics attributed by the XML Schema
> > > spec to xsi:type? What are the implications for broader statements
> > > about XML Schema constructs in general in RDF if we use it for
> > > typing literal resources?
> >
> > Because the xsi:type plays a much different role than rdf:type.
>
>?? The lexical->data thing in itself proposes to go along DAML.
>    Clean and easy to understand.
>
>
> > Yes,
> > yes. Yes.  Maybe, although all you need for this to go through is to
> > understand the primitive (and, maybe, the built-in) XML Schema datatypes.
> >
> > I'm not aware of any problems with the rest of XML Schema.  You should
> > still be able to use xsd:integer as a class, for example.
> >
>[...]
>
>
> > Is RDF, and, certainly
> > RDF/XML, not part of the World-Wide Web.  Is the RDF Core WG not chartered
> > to ``build upon XML Schema datatypes to the fullest extent practical and
> > appropriate''?
>
>data-typing is to aid processing data and not for changing data -
>RDF is to decribe not to change something.
>
>Or?
>
>rs

Joseph Coffman
703 284 8624
703 486 4567
BBN Technologies
A Verizon Company  


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