- From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:31:36 -0500 (EST)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Brian McBride wrote: > I'm really glad to see the progress made on datatypes this week. I think > we may have got to the point where can have a single proposal with some > unresolved issues. This would be magnificent progress from having two > proposals. Hmm... I'm not so sure... > I therefore suggest that Sergey and PatrickS take an action jointly to > prepare a converged datatyping proposal document and circulate it to the WG > by Wed, 13th Feb 2002. That document should be based on: > > - using rdf:dType for datatyping ? why? > - that S-P/TDL is used for global typing Why? Let's please promote S-B. It's evidently acceptable to both PRISM and CC/pp. > - using Graham's doublet suggestion, as adopted by Pat to fix > the model theory Sigh... the simplest model theory, as Jos suggested, just has literals denote themselves. Let's please just stick with this simple design. > - using the simpler of the two approaches suggested by Pat for the > model theory > - that <foo> <bar> "10" is untyped, as in current m&s, but a > syntactic transform can be used to turn it into a typed structure > with a b-node ??? Why? It looks like more unmotivated complexity; it seems to fail the B4 case just as badly as other non-S proposals. This looks like a huge step backwards to me. I don't like earlier TDL proposals, but I think I understand it now. Likewise, I understand folks don't like S, but I think they understand it. Please let's not explore alternatives that are so complex that nobody understands them well enough to object. > They key thing about this document is lock in the progress we have made, so > if there are outstanding issues that are still unresolved, note them in the > document and bring them back to the WG for comment. > Of course, I'd love it if there weren't any. I wouldn't expect this > document to necessarily cover the model theory at this stage. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ pager: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 14:32:41 UTC