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

Re: Reopening tidy/untidy decision

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 11:58:30 +0200
Message-ID: <3D942BC6.6000806@db.stanford.edu>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, ext Eric Miller <em@w3.org>

Brian McBride wrote:

> At 22:21 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>> I ask that the proponents of string-based (tidy) semantics
>> present their arguments to the WG in the same manner
>> as the proponents of value-based (untidy) semantics were
>> asked to do prior ro last Friday's vote.
> That seems sensible.  I suggest we collect all the reasons for and 
> against each proposal into the rationale document we started this week.  


how can "tidy" folks contribute to that document? I'd like the reasoning 
of [1,2] to be included. The points substantiated in [1,2] are these:

a) Untidiness is not required for correct modeling, or forward/backward 

b) Untidiness does not solve a general issue of using substitute 
artifacts in property ranges (claimed by untidy folks). Examples are 
using strings instead of names, names instead of persons, strings 
instead of integers, integers instead of kilograms, kilograms instead of 
masses, integers instead of masses, strings instead of masses. This is 
common modeling practice and cannot possibly be forbidden, let alone by 
using untidy literals.

3) Untidiness requires changes in existing apps and APIs, whereas tidy interpretation does not.


[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0283.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0297.html
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 05:58:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:00 UTC