W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-comments@w3.org > October to December 2002

RE: questions about rdfs:Datatype [Was: RE: Seeking normative definition of datatyping]

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Dec 2002 10:27:58 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021204093729.01f4aa18@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Art.Barstow@nokia.com
Cc: <www-rdf-comments@w3.org>

At 12:39 03/12/2002 -0500, Art.Barstow@nokia.com wrote:
>Hi Brian,
>
> > From: ext Brian McBride [mailto:bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com]
> > I'm not sure what you are looking for here Art.  The primer
> > is (we hope)
> > informative.  I think you can rely on the examples it provides.  We
> > certainly haven't put in any that we know to be wrong.
>
>My point is that M&S defined 15-20 normative examples.  Whereas the
>Primer defines 0 normative examples; the Syntax examples in section 2
>are "informal".  I think normative examples are important (for copying,
>referencing, etc.) so I don't see the current situation as a step
>forward.

A concern I have about examples has been my past experience where folks 
have over interpreted them.  The thing about examples is that they may 
appeal to people's intuitions and that is risky in a normative spec.

Do you have a specific need for normative examples or are you suggesting in 
general that they are a 'good thing'.  I guess I'm not clear why they have 
to be normative.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 4 December 2002 05:26:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Friday, 21 September 2012 14:16:31 GMT