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

Re: Proposed agenda item (no global datatyping)

From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 10:18:55 -0400
Message-ID: <3D6E2D4F.22B9893A@mitre.org>
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

In the context of this discussion, I refer you to
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Aug/0167.html, in
which Pat Hayes says:

> >Is there an appealing use case for untidy literals that is not long 
> >range datatyping (aka implicit/global idiom)?
> >
> >Are we closing off any important extensibility paths if we go for 
> >tidy literals?
> 
> With regards to this last point, yes. DAML and OIL and probably OWL 
> will need the flexibility of allowing (semantically) untidy literals, 
> and if we forbid them then the DAML spec will need to be rewritten 
> and OWL will probably no longer base itself on RDF (or, an 
> alternative scenario, the Webont WG will split apart into two rival 
> groups which will produce incompatible standards. It is perilously 
> close to this already.)

--Frank

Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> 
> If the chair wishes, I would be prepare to propose the following resolution:
> 
> The WG resolves:
> + that the RDF Core Specs will include a local datatyping mechanism
> + that the RDF Core Specs will not include a global datatyping mechanism
> + to rescind the stake-in-the-ground decision
>     DECISION 2002-02-22/2:
>     DECISION 2002-02-22/3:
>   see
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Feb/0656.html
> 
> If we were to consider this I would suggest three straw poll questions
> before hand:
> 
> Qu1: who cannot live with a tidy model theory and no global datatyping?
> Qu2: who cannot live with an untidy model theory and no global datatyping?
> Qu3: who cannot live with no global datatyping?
> 
> My suspicion is that while many in the group have strong opinions about both
> tidiness and global datatyping that a decision not to do global datatyping
> reduces the tension and permits us to achieve consensus, at the cost of
> doing less.
> 
> I would be surprised if we are down to fewer than one responder to each of
> those, but we might find that the minorities are small enough to be
> overruled without breaking consensus.
> 
> Jeremy

-- 
Frank Manola                   The MITRE Corporation
202 Burlington Road, MS A345   Bedford, MA 01730-1420
mailto:fmanola@mitre.org       voice: 781-271-8147   FAX: 781-271-8752
Received on Thursday, 29 August 2002 10:19:08 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:50:29 EDT