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

Reject change to rdf:value (was Re: Comments to item 11 of agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-10-26)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:29:44 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101006b7ff83de0571@[205.160.76.193]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>As I won't be there, can I request that a reference to this message 
>be entered into the IRC log of the meeting, for the record?
>
>>11: Postpone syntax issues
>>The aim here is to quickly resolve those issues for which there is 
>>clear concensus.  If extended discussion is needed, we will 
>>postpone the decision.
>>
>>Propose the WG RESOLVE that the following issues be postponed for 
>>consideration by a future WG
>>
>>See:
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting
>
>OK
>
>>
>>http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-qnames-cant-represent-all-uris
>
>OK
>
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value
>
>[I missed this when it was raised]  I like this proposal, as it 
>makes much more intuitive sense to me, and leverages existing 
>developer understanding of toString() in existing programming 
>languages.  Assuming it's consistent with any decisions about 
>datatyping, I think there would be value to our current charter in 
>adopting this.
>
>To deal with backward compatibility, I'd suggest that rdf:value be 
>retained as a "deprecated" form, equivalent to rdf:toString, which 
>becomes the preferred form.
>
>Thus, my vote is AGAINST deciding to defer this issue to a new WG at 
>this time.  I think the proposal should be accepted or rejected by 
>this WG.

If it is being considered, then I vote to REJECT it, for reasons that 
I hope will become clear when I get the MT datatyping document 
finished. (Basically, the appropriate interpretation of rdf:value in 
the new MT is that it is simply identity, and the 'toString' name is 
then actively misleading. This view of the meaning of rdf:value has 
built into it a view about datatyping that I want to argue against, 
basically one which assumes that all literals occurrences are 
strings.  I think that it only makes intuitive sense if one agrees to 
read all literals as referring to themselves, which, I will argue, 
embodies a use/mention confusion which is neither semantically 
productive nor necessary.)

Pat
-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 17:29:48 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:14 EDT