- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2012 11:34:32 -0600
- To: RDF Working Group <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
- Cc: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
+1. I will ensure that this is done. One slight issue might be that the SWBP document references "RDF Semantics" referring to the 2004 standard, which differs in critical ways from what we will be saying (especially with regard to plain literals values.) If all these references are normative, we will have a normative chain of reference from our specs to the 2004 specs. I guess we will have to work around this using careful and often rather tedious prose. Ivan, any advice on how to proceed on this issue? Pat On Nov 9, 2012, at 2:44 AM, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: > RDF-ISSUE-108 (xsd-valuespaces): Semantics should reference "XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL" [RDF Semantics] > > http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/track/issues/108 > > Raised by: Richard Cyganiak > On product: RDF Semantics > > RDF Semantics section 5 (Interpreting Datatypes), or whatever the equivalent section is in the new document, should contain an informative reference to the section "Comparison of Values" of "XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and OWL" > > http://www.w3.org/TR/swbp-xsch-datatypes/#sec-values > > Another reference to the same section would be appropriate near the definition of entailment rule rdfD3. > > The SWBP document has a good and practical discussion of the relationship of the various XSD datatype value spaces, including how they relate to SPARQL, and thus is a valuable background reference for the discussion of datatype interpretations. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Monday, 12 November 2012 17:34:57 UTC