W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2002

RE: RDF Datatyping Working Draft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Apr 2002 12:27:12 +0100
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEIMCDAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

Looks like a promising start ...

I feel that your pictures can help me clarify my objection:

Section 6.1.2 RDF Model Theory Interpretation


Section 6.1.3 RDF Datatyping Interpretation

are different.

In 6.1.3 all the properties have the same values (satisfying "Jeremy's
entailment"). In 6.1.2 they don't.

Now, if we leave it at that, and have no model theory for datatypes, then
that seems fair enough, and much of my objection is satisfied. But if the
model theory addresses half of datatyping but another half lies somewhere
else it feels very unclear as to when one should use a model theoretic
interpretation and when one should use a datatyping interpretation.

It also feels dubious that the relationship between model theoretic
interpretations and datatyping interpretations is non-monotonic. (And that
this non-monotonicity seems to be motivated primarily by the desire for tidy
literals - my valuation is that non-monotonicity is a greater evil than
either tidiness or untidiness).

I would be satisfied by:
- no MT for datatypes
- non-commitment over tidy literals

(I believe we could have done better but ...)

DO NOT feel obliged to respond to my points now. As far as I am concerned I
lost the critical vote and was in a minority of one, and was hence rightly
overruled. As the relevant WDs appear I intend to draft a dissenting opinion
and circulate it to the WG and to my HP colleagues. After that, assuming my
issues remain unaddressed, this would go on record as either my personal
dissent or as HP's dissent. We have talked about datatyping enough.


> I just put a copy of the RDF Datatyping WD at
> http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/RDFDatatyping.html
> for those who would like to see where I'm at
> with it.
Received on Wednesday, 3 April 2002 06:27:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:57 UTC