W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > September 2011

interrim poll results

From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 13 Sep 2011 07:40:00 -0400
To: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>
Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <1315914000.10394.45.camel@waldron>
On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 11:32 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote:
> And we have put up that WBS form to make that decision! Just make the choices, maybe we do have an acceptable compromise for the group...

I'll note that the chairs haven't yet decided how to read the results
[0].

The most "preferred" option in the poll, "4", is one for which Andy
raised a compatibility question [1] which has not been answered.

The least opposed one, "2d", in its latest formulation [2] is perhaps
the least risky, so that makes sense.

For me, it was disheartening to see that no one else agrees with my
preference (3a).    I guess the "2d" folks prefer <lexrep, datatype,
optional language tag> to <lexrep, datatype>, because they find putting
the language tag into the datatype URI distasteful.   (To me, it's a
small enough step past putting the size range of the number into the
datatype name, like XSD did.  But I can totally respect the 2d choice of
not wanting to microparse, though.)

I don't really understand the choice of "4", though.   Like me, they
want to use <lexrep, datatype>, but oddly they want to concatenate the
language tag with the user's content instead of the datatype IRI.  Since
the datatype is already structured text we control, it's much easier and
more efficient to split apart (cut a known index, instead of searching
for the last "@"), and not subject to the problems of [1].  

Of course, folks have another week to reconsider and change their votes.

   -- Sandro

[0] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/tagged_literals/
[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0040
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083

> Ivan
> 
> 
> On Sep 13, 2011, at 04:53 , Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> > 
> > On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> > 
> >> ...
> > 
> >> I also have a lot of time for curtailing this discussion of literals, since whatever we come with, will be, in most cases, mediated to the user by some other API or application layer, and essentially the same as what we have already. Thus, as the charter indicates, our time would be better spent in discussing new features that give new functionality such as named graphs
> > 
> > 
> > Well, amen to that, but we do actually have make a decision at some point, as the result has minor, but extensive, ramifications throughout the concepts and semantics documents. 
> > 
> > Pat
> > 
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> ----
> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead
> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/
> mobile: +31-641044153
> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html
> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 13 September 2011 11:40:14 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:45 GMT