W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Proposal to drop S from consideration

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:56:23 -0000
To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDIEINCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

I feel Patrick has raised some legimate issues here.

Principally, I understand his message as a vote in the "cannot live with"
category against S; with a coherent explanantion of why: backward

An additional aspect that has come up on WOW is that S is not consistent
with standard XML usage in which strings are implicitly type converted as
necessary e.g.


I, too, feel much more confortable with P, with some additional typing
mechanism, such as that suggested by Patrick.

> I.e.:
>      SUBJ PRED _:OBJ .
>      _:OBJ rdf:value "LIT" .
>      _:OBJ rdf:type TYPE .
> and/or
>      SUBJ PRED "LIT" .
>      PRED rdfs:range TYPE .

I am increasingly concerned about how many changes we feel entitled to make
under our charter. I agree with Patrick that S is explicitly out of scope
according to our current charter. I am concerned that the chair is taking an
increasingly broad view of what changes we may make.

However, I have not strongly objected to S, and continue to not do so, on
the understanding  that we were explicitly permitting our datatyping
discussions to go out of charter. i.e. I believe our intent was to make the
*right* decision on datatyping, and then, if that decision was not one we
could make within our charter we would seek a modification of our charter.

I do not think that S is the right decision, but, apparantly unlike Patrick,
I think I can live with it.

Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 08:56:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:53 UTC