- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2002 13:15:47 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>Enough, you two! > >Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you need to >reply to it within the next minute or you lose! Not unless >several members of the WG agree is something likely to go >into our work products. > >If you want to go back and forth near-real-time like that, >you might try IRC. Or even the phone ;-) Or offline email. Phone is tricky across the Atlantic. >I'm tuning out. I gather other folks in the WG are as well. > >That doesn't help anybody. > >Please, focus on contributing text to our documents. >Or test cases. > >rule of thumb: if a thread goes three messages >in a row without suggesting textual changes for >a document, something's wrong. OK, fair enough. There is a trail of documents which record the various 'simplified' options which Ive been trying to adapt to people's expressed wishes, as follows. The latest of these was pretty conclusively trashed at the todays telecon, however, so might be best to pop the stack once. All of these were written in an 'informal' style, in an attempt to illustrate how this stuff could be presented so as to be reasonably easy to grok. http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary.html (2/7/02) The next three extended this to include more idioms under the same basic MT, and the documents are mostly the same with new bits added in various colors, so you could go straight to #4: http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary2.html (2/11/02) http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary3.html (2/14/02) http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/DatatypeSummary4.html (2/17) That was the one Brian asked for a roundtable vote on, and which he (and others, including me) decided was just getting too complicated, so... http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype.html (2/19) This cut back on the doublet idiom, abandoned rdfs:Datatype, and proposed making triples of form _:bnode <datatype_name> "literal" . the primary 'local' option. http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype1.html (2/20) minor changes; *best current option*, though this document doesn't state the MT very precisely. Also there is no need to use rdfs:drange. rdfs:range will work, as Patrick pointed out. http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2.html (2/21) allowing datatype-sensitive in-line literals, in contrast to previous. Trashed in telecon. However, its worth noting that the actual changes needed to go from rigid literals to type-sensitive literals are in fact quite minimal, both in the graph and in the MT, which is interesting (to me, anyway :-) >Meanwhile, it's not clear that we have a status-quo >datatypes document. That makes life difficult. There seem to be genuine disagreements about what some of the idioms OUGHT to mean, is now my main problem. Until those are resolved we seem to be slightly stuck. I will try to put up a document summarizing what I take to be the current state of play, and the sticking points, and the options for resolving them, by tonight. And I'll include the date in the URI from now on, so this will be http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype2-22.html . Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Friday, 22 February 2002 14:15:51 UTC