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

Re: revised datatyping proposal, now twopence colored

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:08:00 +0000
Message-Id: <>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:43 24/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>now has a diagram in it which might make it clearer

Following the process we agreed at the f2f:

I suggest the this proposal has the following two problems:

   o it does not implement the decision (as I understood it) to
     remove the doublet idiom.

   o it still provides redundant ways to the user of saying the
     same thing - introducing unnecessary complexity

I'm surprised to see dlex still present;  I know Pat mentioned it
on the telecon;  I should have sought clarification of the comment.

Is dlex really necessary?

Sometimes one wishes to associate a literal with a value without specifying 
a particular datatype.

This does not seem to me be a strong need for this from the user's point of 
view.  Does this need come from a technical requirement of the model theory?

I suppose this message comes down to:

   o is dlex necessary

   o if it is necessary for the model theory, can it be hidden in the model 
theory and not exposed to the user.

Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:09:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:56 UTC