Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
Subject: Re: proposed changes to the rdf:text document for option 5
Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 22:14:53 -0500

> 
> On May 27, 2009, at 4:34 PM, Jonathan Rees wrote:
> 
>> On Wed, May 27, 2009 at 5:01 PM, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us> wrote:
>>> Hey, look, if nobody else is bothered by these issues, then I'll  
>>> just shut
>>> up and live with whatever gets written. I'm sure the world in  
>>> general will
>>> find a way to live with it. But I predict that there will be  
>>> problems and
>>> confusions. Just don't say I didn't warn y'all.
>>>
>>> Pat
>>
>> I for one agree with your suggestions, Pat, and I
>> think what you're saying is important. I don't really get what Peter  
>> is
>> saying or why he is so strongly opposed to your suggestions, which
>> seem small and
>> harmless, at worst. If I'm silent it's because you're doing such a
>> good job and I
>> have nothing to add. So please don't go away.
>>
> 
> Oh, don't worry, its harder than that to actually get *rid* of me.
> 
> But the differences between Peter's current line and my suggestion are  
> really more to do with presentation and wording than with content.  
> They both amount to: keeping RDF literal syntax unchanged, prohibiting  
> the use of rdf:text in typed literal syntax, and reinterpreting plain  
> literal syntax as being typed with rdf:text. The only difference is  
> that Peter's wording kind of sneaks this past the reader, by being  
> very scholastic and careful in its wording, whereas mine is much more  
> in-your-face and explicit. I don't think any user or tool-builder is  
> going to be able to tell the difference; it will only be an issue when  
> people get very picky-picky about exactly which specs say what.
> 
> Peter's wording manages to avoid being a change to RDF, technically  
> speaking, but is clearly designed to exert a kind of retroactive  
> pressure on RDF tools to recognize rdf:text adequately, like RIF and  
> OWL2 will. My wording creates two varieties of RDF. I'm not sure which  
> is best, to tell you the truth.  It may well be that Peter's style  
> will in fact cause less grief than mine, in practice, since it will  
> allow a gradual morphing from old RDF to new RDF without most people  
> noticing the change, whereas mine requires you to wear your  
> allegiances on your sleeve, so to speak. Also, I simply had not  
> thought of the issue that Andy raised, about mime types, and I don't  
> have an answer.
> 
> And, there was an actual vote during the call, and Peter's version won  
> it, and mine clearly caused a lot of back-pressure and er-um  
> reactions. And I think he has adequately answered all of my email  
> objections.  So I'm inclined to go with the flow and stick to arguing  
> about minor wording tweaks. I think everything will work out OK, in  
> fact.
> 
> Pat

Yeah, and all this just so that someone can say that no primitive
one-celled applications were harmed during the dissemination of this
RECOMMENDATION.

peter

Received on Thursday, 28 May 2009 03:41:19 UTC