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 15:36:55 -0400
Message-ID: <00df01c22f5b$a3ce7060$0200a8c0@GSC866>
To: <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>


----- Original Message -----
From: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Geoff Chappell" <geoff@sover.net>; <www-rdf-logic@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2002 11:31 AM
Subject: Re: Datatypes input: summary of responses so far


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


Sorry, I thought I'd been clear in my first sentence. Given the options, I
prefer D (untidy). If other options were available (such as the one I
suggested) I might change my mind.

-Geoff


>
> 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 11:36:43 GMT

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