Action 299 - removing sorts

> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/track/actions/299 has been completed.  Part
> of the title of this action says: "handle datatypes as in RDF."  This was
> *not* what was resolved at the F2F and was put in there by mistake (I
> hope).  Certainly, I would not have agreed to such an action, since I do
> not know what this might mean in logic.

As I recall, by that point of the meeting we were in something of a
hurry, and people were talking over each other, so I guess I can
understand how you missed this.  In general, there should be a pause and
people should double check on IRC to make sure their action is recorded
in a way they are comfortable with.  It sounds like there was a process
error in not making sure we did that.

There was not a clerical error in drafting that action, however -- I
proposed that wording to match my understanding of group consensus.

Specifically, I heard people saying we still needed some kind of "sort"
thing for data values, and general murmurs that what RDF has is fine.

As I understand it, RDF Semantics just formalizes the notion in XML
Schema that a string like "3" or "2001-01-01" is a lexical
representation of some individual in a "value space" (the number three,
or the day Jan 1, 2001), and that a datatype URI identifies a mapping
from these lexical representations to values.

The actual spec is:
      http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-mt/#dtype_interp

> Other than that, the main changes are in 
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Positive_Conditions
> http://www.w3.org/2005/rules/wg/wiki/Core/Slotted_Conditions (to a much
> lesser extent).
> 
> Although sorts have been removed, signatures remain. I do not know how
> to ensure extensibility without signatures. When you read it, you might
> notice the term "signature name". This has nothing to do with "sort names".
> Just so that you'd know :-)

I can't picture what you mean here.   Can you give me an example of how
signatures help with extensibility?

   -- Sandro

Received on Monday, 16 July 2007 18:17:52 UTC