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: <5.1.0.14.0.20020301164714.02c8a480@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:43 24/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html
>
>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.

Brian
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:09:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:46:12 EDT