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

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

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2001 09:56:32 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011029095448.00a0e4a0@joy.songbird.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 04:29 PM 10/26/01 -0500, Pat Hayes wrote:
>>>   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.)

This would be fine by me (modulo actually seeing and understanding the 
proposal).

I think Aaron said it better.  I don't think this is an issue that should 
be postponed.

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 29 October 2001 07:54:15 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:41:16 EDT