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

Re: Weekly call for agenda items

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 23 May 2002 21:11:40 +0300
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, arno Gourdol <agourdol@adobe.com>, andrew Salop <asalop@adobe.com>
Message-ID: <B9130B8C.15460%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-05-23 18:42, "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:

> 
> 
>> 
>> Datatypes: stake-in-ground vs simpledatatype2
>> 
>> [yeah, I know, slap me...]
>> 
>> Patrick
> 
> I regret that you weren't at the after hours conversation last
> week.

As do I.

> I found it helpful, and thought Aaron's e-mail summarised what
> I learnt:
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002May/0066.html

Aaron's comments may be true for some preceptions of DC, but
other applications (actually, most of them, from what I've
seen, including I think alot of common perception about DC
as well) still take an untidy simpledatatypes2 view of things.

In fact, I've been working for awhile on some RDF querying
stuff that relies on the inline idiom being understood
to "provide" a datatype value, and unfortunately since
the present stake-in-ground proposal does not offer this
(much to my disappointment and due to my own misunderstanding
of the MT) I find myself in a position of being a co-editor
of a specification that I myself will reject and not use
for most of what I am using datatyped RDF for.

So, clearly, I'm rather concerned.

> While I continue to support simpledatatype2 I believe that
> the group should as much as possible concentrate on getting
> the current datatype stuff out to the community as a WD.

I agree. I didn't mean to imply that getting the present WD
finished and out would be held up by discussing the concerns
already raised about it by you, myself, Graham, etc.

I don't know whether Pat or Sergey presently has the lock,
but it's not me. But I'm also eager to see it get out to
the public (both because it's well overdue, and because I
expect that the issues already leveled against it will find
support in the general RDF community).

Still, I wonder whether it still reflects the true concensus
of the WG... (i.e. would the WG still vote the way it did)

> As such, I would support the chair in stating that your
> agenda request is about an issue that is currently not open.

Hmmmm...  well, I consider datatypes to still be an open
issue, or at least, to be an issue that still has problem
areas and not "a done deal" so to speak. But I certainly will
understand if Brian deems it to be inappropriate for tomorrow's
aggenda.

Cheers,

Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Thursday, 23 May 2002 14:08:09 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:48:15 EDT