- From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
- Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:46:35 -0400
- To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
All things considered I think the undtidy option (yes to D) is the better of the two options put forth. I base this on: Tidy ==== Pro: - most existing implementations are likely to assume tidy literals today - possible performance benefits for some implementations Con: - can't satisfactorily handle the progressive qualification of a datatyped literal (i.e. the common usage of specifying a value by literal or by anon node with additional typing if known) Untidy ===== Pro: - can nicely handle the progressive qualification of a datatyped literal Con: - not sure I inderstand all of the implications of literals as referrers so I'm a little wary That said, if the core group made it the job of the rdf/xml parser to just expand a literal value into a typed node at parse time, I'd prefer the tidy option. --Geoff Chappell ----- Original Message ----- From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org> Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 6:39 AM Subject: Datatypes input: summary of responses so far > > First, thanks to everyone who has responded to the request for input. > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0047.html > > Secondly, a brief remark to those who are concerned about the question and > the constraints based on the answers. One of my failings is often to be > less clear than I should be in setting the context for a message. > > The context here is that the WG has been struggling to get a first > datatypes WD published. We are stuck in a loop. This question is designed > to get us out of that loop. That done, we will publish our first WD and > invite full public discussion of that draft. It would be very helpful to > us if folks could treat this question in the form: > > given (for now) that we had to make the choice between YES to A > or YES to D, which is better > > Given a decisive answer to that question, we can get on and seek your > review of the full datatypes proposal. > > Now, a summary of responses so far. Please let me know your response is > missing or inaccurately represented. > > > Responses: > > Prefer A to be yes: none > > Prefer D to be yes: 4 > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0021.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0028.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0045.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0022.html > > Responses I'm unable to interpret one way or the other: 2 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0023.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0026.html > > That's a dumb question: 1 > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0039.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0054.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jul/0059.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jul/0047.html > > Suggested Alternative Approaches: > > Consider defining literals to denote *sets* of values. > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0033.html > > Have two different kinds of equality > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0023.html > > Require the syntax to be precise about the value that is intended > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-logic/2002Jul/0069.html > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-comments/2002JulSep/0024.html > > Finally, the response period has slipped and I will be on holiday next week. > > Brian
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 10:46:29 UTC