- From: Dave Reynolds <der@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 15:02:11 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-text@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > As I'm imagining it, any time anyone defines a new datatype, they are > adding an element to the conceptual model of RDF. Adding a datatype does not change the conceptual model of RDF. Making things that were not datatyped now be datatyped, even though their spelling in the syntax hasn't shifted, is a change. It's a plausible change, one which I'm sure can be lived with, but the "this is just another datatype" argument doesn't fly. > How about: > > This is an extension for use with RDF that does not change the > conceptual model of RDF itself, so the existances of this > specification does not mandate any changes to software or affect > the specifications that depend on the conceptual model of RDF such > as SPARQL. > > Maybe that's true enough for Peter, while avoiding Dave's surprise about > the claim of not changing the model? I don't buy it but doubt I'll formally object. I should be clear that my reaction is this thread reflects personal opinion triggered by trying to catch up on the deluge of mail on this topic on a Friday afternoon. It is not a formal, thought-through, HP position. Dave
Received on Friday, 29 May 2009 14:03:07 UTC