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

Re: Comments on ioctl (was: Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13))

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:32:27 -0500
Message-ID: <3BC44DEB.18F7FD56@w3.org>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> >
> >I disagree; I think it's important to be clear about what RDF 1.0
> >is and what it isn't, and the sooner the better. Perhaps it's
> >time to design RDF 1.x or RDF 2.0 that doesn't have these limitations.
> >But we can't do that (inside a W3C WG) until we're done with
> >RDF 1.0.
> 
> OK, fair enough. Ive been trying to serve two masters here,
> obviously. Maybe if it is just a fact that DAML+OIL doesn't in fact
> fit onto RDF, then we ought to make this vividly clear rather than
> try to fix it.

Perhaps I overstated the case... the evidence gathered by Art[1]
that RDF 1.0 tools are all over the board on literals puts
very little weight on any argument of the form "RDF 1.0 implementors
have understood the spec to say XYZ...".

Meanwhile, I've gotten a clarification of how DAML+OIL treats
literals, and I've seen claims that it's been implemented.

So I think we're not very much constrained by history.
In some ways, I lean toward saying we should strike
parseType="Literal" and xml:lang from the RDF 1.0 spec
on the basis that there's insufficient implementation experience,
just like aboutEachPrefix, and come back to richer
literals and datatypes in RDF 1.x.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0095.html
Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:29:11 -0400

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 09:36:31 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:59 EDT