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

Re: Choosing the best of three alternatives

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 14:05:23 +0200
To: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Cc: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, duerst@w3.org, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF4256A098.CC384FEF-ONC1256D60.0042392D-C1256D60.00426977@agfa.be>


Good work Patrick ;-)
my straw is

Alternative 0: can live with
Alternative 1: preferred
Alternative 2: abstain

have a nice telecon

--
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/


                                                                                                                                        
                      "Patrick Stickler"                                                                                                
                      <patrick.stickler@        To:       "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Brian McBride"          
                      nokia.com>                 <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>                                                                  
                      Sent by:                  cc:       "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>     
                      w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Choosing the best of three alternatives                                       
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                       
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        
                      2003-07-11 11:23                                                                                                  
                      AM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                        






It would be useful, I think, if we could have a straw poll, either
during today's telecon or via email, between the following three
alternatives for the treatment of XML literals.

Votes should be "prefer", "can't live with", "can live with". Only
one alternative should be specified as preferred.

--

Alternative 0:   (no change)

As defined presently in the RDF specifications.

- two types of literals: plain and typed
- XML literals treated as typed literals
- lang tag can be associated with plain literals
- no lang tag associated with typed literals, including XML literals
- clear distinction between plain literals and XML literals

--

Alternative 1:

As defined in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0131.html

- two types of literals: plain and typed
- XML literals treated same as plain literals
- lang tag can be associated with plain literals, including XML literals
- no lang tag associated with typed literals
- no distinction between plain literals and XML literals

** Changes to RDF/XML syntax

--

Alternative 2:

As defined in
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0151.html

- three types of literals: plain, XML, and typed
- XML literals treated distinct from plain literals
- lang tag can be associated with both plain literals and XML literals
- no lang tag associated with typed literals
- clear distinction between plain literals and XML literals

** Changes to RDF/XML syntax, Graph syntax, N-Triples syntax, and MT

--

All of the above options fall within the scope of known territory for
the WG insofar as the MT and RDF/XML syntax is concerned and
do not introduce any new substantive issues. It's really a matter
of practical and cosmetic reorganization rather than a change
in power of expression.

Pat's recent comments suggest that alternative 1 would not require
any changes, or at least any substantive changes to the MT. Clearly
alternative 2 above would require reinstitution of some content from
previous drafts dealing with distinct XML literals and the entire MT
rechecked for consistency.

None of the above options are perfect for all use cases.

We need to choose whichever option seems most optimal, including
meeting the internationalization concerns of the I18N WG.

Clearly the impact of alternative 2 is substantially greater than for
alternative 1. Perhaps it's warranted. The straw poll will show.

--

My vote is:

Alternative 0: can live with
Alternative 1: preferred
Alternative 2: can live with

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 08:06:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:58:44 EDT