> Again, you are not differentiating between the act of simply creating
> the name and what might be said with that name (either by explicit
> statement or in this case implicitly by the choice of characters
> making up the name).
You can say, that you don't see a problem, where i see one.
You can't say, that i'm not differentiating between the string 12 and the
> And as there is no official URN scheme for ISBNs, what else am I
> to do if I wish to have URIs based on ISBNs denoting books?
There is a URN Scheme for ISBNs
> > > I think that the entire xsi: vocabulary is a mistake and reflects
> > > a certain arrogance of XML Schema over the broader XML community.
> Just because both RDF and XML Schema are both children of the W3C
> does not mean that they should be inextricably dependent.
One could have thought of a connection from
> > > I don't expect that any RDF/XML parser should have to correctly
> > > interpret any xsi: vocabulary. RDF uses XML for its serialization,
> > > not XML Schema.
> Again, I'm not saying that RDF and XML Schema are in conflict, in
> principle, but simply that the use of xsi: vocabulary terms in
> an RDF/XML instance is not valid, and need not be required.
Yes, that is the state of the art.
> It's of course interesting to note that RDF's striping syntax
> model cannot actually be captured by an XML Schema (though I
> have heard that RELAX NG is up to the task) so one might wish
> to ask the more appropriate question of why this is so, since
> both RDF and XML Schema are, after all, both defined by the W3C..
Yes, i wish to ask this question.
> > > I hope that in future editions of the XML Schema specs, the xsi:
> > > vocabulary would be deprecated.
> > Is there activity by rdf-core to serve for?
> It has absolutely nothing to do with the RDF Core WG.
> > Are you saying
> > http://www.dublincore.org/documents/2002/09/09/dc-xml-guidelines
> > Recommendation 7 is to be deprecated?
> Well, not if you
> change the name from "Guidelines for implementing Dublin
> Core in XML" to "Guidelines for implementing Dublin Core in XML *Schema*"
> since the requirement to use xsi:type to capture key parts of the
> DC ontology require an XML Schema parser, not simply an XML parser.
> > >
> > > Furthermore, the L2V mapping is essential because the mapping
> > > is N:1 where N>=1 -- i.e. there may be more than one lexical form
> > > that maps to the same value, and thus, simple comparison of
> > > typed literals is insufficient to determine equality.
> > >
> > > E.g. "1.0"^^xsd:decimal == "1"^^xsd:integer == "000001"^^xsd:byte
How you do with a type like string union integer.
> > Where such equations are provided by RDF semantics ??
> Sure. See the MT and the test cases.
Could you give a more specific pointer?