Re: Action: proposal for WG position on XML literal design

As they say

	I don't care what you say about me as long as you spell my name
	right.

:-)

peter

PS:  The current RDF Core WG design with respect to literals is much better
than those proposed by I18N, but I have concerns with  its requirement that
all literals, XML literals included, have to have lexical forms that are in
NFC.


From: Guus Schreiber <schreiber@cs.vu.nl>
Subject: Action: proposal for WG position on XML literal design
Date: Thu, 02 Oct 2003 00:03:25 +0100

> 
>  > ACTION Guus: revise proposal for WebOnt WG position
>  > on RDF Core literal decision
> 
> Proposed:
> 
> Position of the Web Ontology Working Group on the XML Literal design
> 
>  From an Webont perspective there were serious problems with the LC1
> design of XML literals, as indicated by the official comments from
> Webont and the individual comments from Patel-Scheider. The new XML
> literal design, as specified in the current WDs, appears to Webont to
> be a well-motivated rational design choice in a space of conflicting
> requirements [1]. The arguments against the alternatives proposed by
> I18N are compelling (see e.g. [2]).  The current post-LC design works
> for OWL and is our preferred design in the context of the options
> currently on the table.
> 
> [1] 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-webont-wg/2003Sep/att-0002/i18n-part-1.html
> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Aug/0004
> 
> 
> -- 
> Free University Amsterdam, Computer Science
> De Boelelaan 1081a, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands
> Tel: +31 20 444 7739/7718
> E-mail: schreiber@cs.vu.nl
> Home page: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~guus/
>

Received on Wednesday, 1 October 2003 19:14:43 UTC