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

Re: 2002-04-16 RDF Datatyping WD submitted for review by WG

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 17 Apr 2002 17:33:26 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510150cb8e3a19cb9a7@[65.217.30.94]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>The first complete draft (excluding introductory and non-normative
>material) is available at
>
>    http://www-nrc.nokia.com/sw/rdf-datatyping.html
>
>and is presented to the WG for review.

Impressive piece of work, but Im afraid Im not happy with it in this 
form. I would prefer to avoid all talk of 'contexts' (ill-defined and 
potentially confusing) and 'datatyped literals' (which aren't in the 
current proposal.) I don't know what 'designate' means. Several 
sections are I think genuinely wrong, most notably 7.1.4.

I'll try to respond to the red technical points tonight or v. shortly.

Minor point. I know Im going back on what I said before, but now I 
see all the examples (congrats on those, BTW) I find the closeness of 
rdfd:datatype and rdfd:Datatype rather anxiety-producing.  (Does 
anyone else agree?) I think we should either go back to rdfd:range or 
something truly different like rdfd:typeCheckOnRange.

Maybe rdfd:drange would be peculiar enough?

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 Wednesday, 17 April 2002 18:33:30 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:47:31 EDT