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

Re: Datatypes input: summary of responses so far

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 18 Jul 2002 16:31:19 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020718162255.0285dc60@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>, <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>

Hi Geoff,

Phew, you guys do make work for me :)  How do I interpret this response?

It says, prefer tidy, if the rdf/xml parser were to transform all literals 
into a b-node structure on input.

We have considered that option, and basically rejected it on the grounds it 
would change the interpretation of pretty much all existing rdf/xml.

I think I hear you preferring tidy and, like the WG, looking for ways to 
wriggle out of the implications of that choice.  This is exactly what has 
kept the WG embroiled for so long.  As it stands however, we have not found 
a satisfactory solution and you have not given us a clear answer to our 
question.

If you had to choose, A or D, which would it be?

Brian

At 14:46 19/07/2002 -0400, Geoff Chappell wrote:
>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 11:32:42 GMT

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