W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: 'Peter proposal' on typed literals

From: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 13:44:32 +0100
To: "Patrick.Stickler" <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <13354.1049460272@hoth.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>

>>>"Patrick.Stickler" said:

<snip/>

> > Please can you explain the new information that was brought up
> > and the reason for this particular solution.
> 
> Simple. As Peter points out, and I agree, having a single "special"
> datatype that does not work the same as all other datatypes is a
> problem.

We should look up the reason we made this change last time - why was
rdf:XMLLiteral invented.  It might be it still remains the least
worst option of several.

Is there any *critical* reason why this special case is a problem or
is this just a consistency "yuck" argument?

If the latter there are several choices to make all literals act the
same. Throwing out xml:lang everywhere, adding it everywhere.  Adding
a datatype to all literals such as rdf:PlainLiteral.


<snip/>

> I think the WG would have a very strong and fast concensus of how
> non-datatype XML literals would be defined and the editorial effort
> would not be prohibitive.

Sorry, the editorial effort is not minimal - we still haven't worked
any of the details of the <rdf-wrapper> thing, and I don't like it so far.

So I'm checking for good reasons why, and consistency while nice,
isn't one.

The implementation effort is also greater.

<snip/>
> > OK, I'm clear on what you want to do.  I want to know why.
> 
> So that *all* rdfs:Datatype's would have identical treatment.

ok, it is consistency.  I rate that as not sufficient alone.


<snip/>

> Dave said:
> > Both of these will cause significant implementation
> > rewritings/reversions - and I *do* know this since I recall changing
> > it last time.  Plus there is also having to update/revert and check
> > several test cases and WD text changes.
> 
> Fair enough. But I think this falls within the scope of "doing it right
> this time around".

In that case, what is wrong (broken, critical) that we are now meant
to be doing right?   On proposal #2, what is wrong with lang tags on
XML literals, that you cannot live with or breaks something?

Dave
Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 07:47:00 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:52 EDT