- From: Manos Batsis <m.batsis@bsnet.gr>
- Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2002 11:13:26 +0200
- To: "Jonathan Borden" <jborden@mediaone.net>, <johns@syscore.com>
- Cc: <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>, <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <E657D8576967CF448D6AF22CB42DD2690FF1F6@ermhs.Athens.BrokerSystems.gr>
> John F Schlesinger wrote: > > > Jonathan said: "Please do not bind the "xsd" prefix to the > > Please let us not forget that the prefix 'xsd' is purely > conventional and > > has no semantics except when related to an xmlns attribute. Absolutely. However: >>It is > perfectly > > correct for RDF data types to associate xsd with > > http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema# Nope, it is definitely not correct. See [1], the URI you mention is to be used by XML Schema itself to refer to it's build in datatypes. The XML Schema spec explicitly gives a URI for an XML application other than itself to use it's build in datatypes, that URI is http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes So, to use the Int type in a language other than XSD one must use something like the following: http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema-datatypes#int I believe the prefix is an irrelevant subject, as long as known prefixes are not used; using a widely used prefix (although perfectly legal) may cause confusion. One thing that worries me is the notation of facets; I don't know how common this is but I guess it should be accepted by a WG since it's inside a recommendation. Finally, there is the subject of Type Libraries [2], that are far more interesting. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/#namespaces [2] http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-0/#Libs Manos
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 04:10:30 UTC