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
compatibility.

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.

<record>
  <name>Fred</name>
  <age>40</age>
</record>

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.

Jeremy
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 08:56:54 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:46 EDT