[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RDDL for names (was Re: XML Schema built-in data type namespace URI.)
- From: email@example.com (Henry S. Thompson)
- To: Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2001 10:27:05 +0000
"Jonathan Borden" <email@example.com> writes:
> Henry S. Thompson wrote:
> > Jonathan Borden <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> > >
> > > A big problem here is that QNames and URIs are not being used in a web
> > > interoperable or meaningful way. Are you saying that the concept
> > > "unsignedInt" as named by
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#unsignedInt
> > >
> > > is different than the concept "unsignedInt" as named by:
> > >
> > > http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema-datatypes#unsignedInt
The concept is the same, but that's _only_ because they both are
connected to http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#unsignedInt.
To try to bring your and Simon's threads together, I think what we're
struggling with is the difference between the concept "unsignedInt" as
defined by the W3C XML Schema spec. and various representations and/or
manifestations of it, and then trying to generalise from this
particular case to the general case of elements and attributes and
types in any namespace.
There are in general a _range_ of formal things you may want to say
about some concept: a W3C XML Schema simple type definition for it;
an RDF Schema description of it; a Java implementation of it; . . .
So it's clear that Simon was on the right track in one sense -- we've
got the same issue at the level of individual names that RDDL is
intended to solve for namespaces, so why not extend RDDL to handle
this as well?
What this would mean is that not only does
e.g. http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema resolve to (_inter alia_) an
RDDL document, but that http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#unsignedInt
resolves to a <resourceSubdirectory> (to make something up) in that
RDDL document which in turn identifies the various sub-parts of its
<resources> which correspond to this particular name.
Note that this would address my complaint about element foo
vs. attribute foo etc., because the relevant (arc)Role properties
would enable you to learn that they both were defined.
Hope this helps, in haste,
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
W3C Fellow 1999--2001, part-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: email@example.com