- From: Guus Schreiber <guus.schreiber@vu.nl>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 14:01:58 +0200
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: Ivan Herman <ivan@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>, public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 13-09-2011 13:40, Sandro Hawke wrote: > On Tue, 2011-09-13 at 11:32 +0200, Ivan Herman wrote: >> And we have put up that WBS form to make that decision! Just make the choices, maybe we do have an acceptable compromise for the group... > > I'll note that the chairs haven't yet decided how to read the results > [0]. At the moment it seems only option 1 and 2d met the criterion of consensus, as all the other have a substantial number of "no" responses. I suggest we briefly review the status at the meeting. Guus > > The most "preferred" option in the poll, "4", is one for which Andy > raised a compatibility question [1] which has not been answered. > > The least opposed one, "2d", in its latest formulation [2] is perhaps > the least risky, so that makes sense. > > For me, it was disheartening to see that no one else agrees with my > preference (3a). I guess the "2d" folks prefer<lexrep, datatype, > optional language tag> to<lexrep, datatype>, because they find putting > the language tag into the datatype URI distasteful. (To me, it's a > small enough step past putting the size range of the number into the > datatype name, like XSD did. But I can totally respect the 2d choice of > not wanting to microparse, though.) > > I don't really understand the choice of "4", though. Like me, they > want to use<lexrep, datatype>, but oddly they want to concatenate the > language tag with the user's content instead of the datatype IRI. Since > the datatype is already structured text we control, it's much easier and > more efficient to split apart (cut a known index, instead of searching > for the last "@"), and not subject to the problems of [1]. > > Of course, folks have another week to reconsider and change their votes. > > -- Sandro > > [0] http://www.w3.org/2002/09/wbs/46168/tagged_literals/ > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0040 > [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2011Sep/0083 > >> Ivan >> >> >> On Sep 13, 2011, at 04:53 , Pat Hayes wrote: >> >>> >>> On Sep 12, 2011, at 10:47 AM, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >>> >>>> ... >>> >>>> I also have a lot of time for curtailing this discussion of literals, since whatever we come with, will be, in most cases, mediated to the user by some other API or application layer, and essentially the same as what we have already. Thus, as the charter indicates, our time would be better spent in discussing new features that give new functionality such as named graphs >>> >>> >>> Well, amen to that, but we do actually have make a decision at some point, as the result has minor, but extensive, ramifications throughout the concepts and semantics documents. >>> >>> Pat >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------ >>> IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 >>> 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office >>> Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax >>> FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile >>> phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> >> ---- >> Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead >> Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ >> mobile: +31-641044153 >> PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html >> FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf >> >> >> >> >> >> >> > > >
Received on Wednesday, 14 September 2011 12:02:50 UTC