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

Datatypes Draft Questions & Comments

From: Stephen Petschulat/CanWest/IBM <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 30 Aug 2002 07:00:02 -0700
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFC93A097A.F2C80077-ON88256C23.006DC8DF-88256C25.004CE99D@mkm.can.ibm.com>

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 EDT

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