- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 09:58:11 -0600
- To: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Jan 20, 2010, at 8:05 AM, David Booth wrote: > On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:14 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: >> One of the things I failed to realize in time to >> put my weight behind it was that an approach to datatyping based on >> interpretation properties, which was proposed by Dan Connolly, >> could be as >> convenient to use, if not more so, than the current datatyping >> scheme, and would >> keep the core of RDF very much simpler. We did consider designs like this, but there were strong arguments made against them, chiefly the issues of triple-bloat (IMO not v. important) and what to do about partial/missing information (IMO very important.) Also, there is a general design issue here, which is that keeping the 'core' of RDF simple, at the cost making actual RDF used by users more complicated, seems to me exactly the way we should not be going. If anything, we leaned too far in that direction already. > > I agree. The interpretation properties[1] approach is very general, > clean and logical. If it feels inconvenient, that seems to me like an > argument for syntactic sugar rather than a different approach. All my alarm bells go off when I read sentences like this. Allow me to offer a translation. This idea is great because it makes theoreticians happy, and if it doesn't match user intuitions, then we can fudge some way to make it seem invisible: they will never notice, don't worry. They are too dumb to see what the actual syntax is really like. After all, nobody ever looks at actual XML, right? Pat Hayes > > 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html > > > -- > David Booth, Ph.D. > Cleveland Clinic (contractor) > > Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not > necessarily > reflect those of Cleveland Clinic. > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ 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
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 15:59:33 UTC