W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-logic@w3.org > July 2002

Re: Datatypes input: summary of responses so far

From: Geoff Chappell <geoff@sover.net>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2002 14:46:35 -0400
Message-ID: <007801c22f54$9c58f870$0200a8c0@GSC866>
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 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:52:42 GMT