From: Jonathan Borden (jborden@mediaone.net)
Date: 12/22/01
Patrick, Let me say this as plainly as possible: XML Schema 1.0 does not provide a general mechanism to assign URIs to datatypes. XML Schema 1.0 identifies datatypes by XML QNames, not URIs. That said, the XML Schema 1.0 recommendation (part 2) explicitly provides a specific set of URIs for a specific set of primitive datatypes. Jonathan > > d) there are (currently) _serious_ problems assigning URIs to > > general XML > > Schema datatypes. The URIs given for the simple XML Schema > > datatypes have > > been explicitly created. The XML Schema formalism (WD) > > proposes a new URI > > syntax to resolve these issues, but this syntax is not > > comparible with other > > XML fragment identifier syntax proposals including XPointer. Sigh. > > While this is a significant issue to be resolved within the > broader scope of XML/Web standards interoperability, it does not > pose a problem to RDF, per se, so long as datatype URIs are > valid URIs -- since URIs are opaque identifiers within the > RDF graph space. > > Thus, following the approach of pairing lexical form (literal) > with data type (URI), RDF should be able to handle any data > typing scheme so long as each data type (simple or complex) has > a valid URI -- regardless of whether that URI is parsable or > meaningful to any other particular XML or internet standard > or tool. > > Cheers, > > Patrick > > -- > > Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 > Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 > Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST