- From: Stephen Petschulat/CanWest/IBM <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:00:02 -0700
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
ACTION 2002-08-23#4, SteveP - Comments on: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Aug/0111.html Note I'm addressing my comments to the new two part document. 1.2 Desiderata... I'm not sure bullets 5-7 on global vs. local typing issues need to be in the desiderata. They sound confusing and clutter up an otherwise nice list of high level goals for RDF Datatyping. 3.1 Global Datatyping Assertions It might be nice for this example to show a triple using the "age" property to demonstrate the redundant typing information (w/ a forward link to the section discussing this issue). The datatype assertion by itself seems incomplete. 3.2 Datatype Clashes Implementors of RDF software will undoubtedly want to know how to deal with these issues. E.g. does local typing override global typing? The wording "care must be taken" isn't terribly helpful. These clashes will be a common occurance. If every piece of RDF software deals with them differently then the benefits of having a datatyping standard is diminished. 6.1.2 Gobal Datatyping Excludes... Is the example provided then invalid RDF or is the user just not allowed to make the inference at the MT level? Usage of "tidy/untidy" terms... these terms have the potential to confuse an outside audience rather than clarify. Is it *impossible* to come up with a MT that supports both global datatyping and inline implicit literals or the *current* MT doesn't support both? cheers, - steve Stephen Petschulat
Received on Friday, 30 August 2002 10:01:16 UTC