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

Re: High-level comments on datatyping draft

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2002 17:15:57 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020827161156.02f24c68@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com

At 07:32 26/08/2002 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:

[...]


>Finally, I think that global datatyping (Sec. 3.2) is out of scope of the
>current document. At this point of time we do not have a mechanism
>robust enough to standardize on global datatyping.

Sergey,

I interpret these comments in the light of your preference for tidy literals.

Not having a global datatyping mechanism does not excuse us from deciding 
whether literals are tidy or untidy.  Does:

   _:a foo:bar "lit" .
   _:b bar:foo "lit" .

entail

   _:a foo:bar _:l .
   _:b bar:foo _:l .

Tempted as I am to duck this question, given our failure to agree, I don't 
see a way to do so and retain a model theory.

At the June f2f we had a strawpoll on tidiness and the vote was narrowly in 
favour of untidy.  Recognising that this was a change by a narrow margin 
from one position to another, we decided to test this decision with the 
community.  This we have done, and the responses that we got were 8 to 2 in 
favour of untidiness.

In the meantime, we are considering a new datatyping option which requires 
changes to the abstract syntax of RDF and to the concrete XML syntax, which 
means that pretty much every other document is waiting on datatypes.

We need to see immediate and rapid progress on the datatypes document.  It 
is putting all the rest of our efforts at risk.

Brian
Received on Tuesday, 27 August 2002 13:00:26 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:28 EDT