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

Re: Denotation of datatype values

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Apr 2002 17:20:40 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020418171827.02732670@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 20:16 16/04/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-04-16 20:03, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
> > At 16:33 15/04/2002 -0400, Pat Hayes wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> I don't want to be a party-pooper, but I honestly feel that having an MT
> >> and sticking to it is one way to get past this kind of half-formalized
> >> (and rather confusing) kind of discussion. I do not know what these
> >> 'levels' are supposed to be, or how to recognize them, or how to evaluate
> >> talk about them, etc. etc. . Why not stick to the syntax and the MT, and
> >> just talk about that? Then everything is clear. What an application wants
> >> to do with an RDF graph is up to it, not up to us. All we can do is to
> >> provide application writers with a gold standard for meanings, and leave
> >> other 'layers' to them.
> >
> > I agree.
>
>That's a pity, because there are lots of users of RDF who can't
>read or understand the MT. So...
>
>There are many different kinds of "customers" who will read the
>RDF Datatyping specification, and we need to be sure that it is
>clear and approachable -- and ultimately *usable* -- to them all.

Yes, I think I am persuaded of that.  The trick might be to have a clear 
distinction between the formal specs and more tutorial oriented text.

Brian
Received on Thursday, 18 April 2002 12:22:59 EDT

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