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

RE: Concepts: pfps-14 Social Meaning & authority for datatypes

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 12:27:52 +0300
Message-ID: <A03E60B17132A84F9B4BB5EEDE57957B01B90CA5@trebe006.europe.nokia.com>
To: <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 09 April, 2003 10:25
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Concepts: pfps-14 Social Meaning & authority for 
> datatypes
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick:
> > I agree. This is incorrect
> 
> that seems to be conclusive that the text should go.
> One of the many problems with section 4 was that some people 
> did not like the 
> idea that there is a defining authority. If the other text we 
> have concerning 
> defining authorities is questionable, then deleting it feels 
> like a safe 
> option (since RDF with no defining authorities even for 
> datatypes is not 
> really significantly more broken than RDF with no defining 
> authorities except 
> for datatypes).
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> (I am sorry Patrick I haven't even tried to understand your 
> argument for why 
> it is wrong, or how to fix it)

Fair enough.

My view in a nutshell is that there *are* defining authorities, both
for datatypes and for URI denotations, but they need not be the *same*
authority for a given URI denoting a given datatype.

And the text in question IMO says that they are the same authority.

Patrick
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 05:27:56 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:56:54 EDT