- From: David Booth <david@dbooth.org>
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 11:52:48 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Cc: Graham Klyne <GK-lists@ninebynine.org>, Harry Halpin <hhalpin@ibiblio.org>, semantic-web@w3.org
On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 09:58 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote: > 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. IMO Interpretation Properties help give both, but of course YMMV. Mind you, I don't think this is currently a big enough problem to motivate an RDF 2.0, but if an RDF 2.0 were being designed, I think it should be a candidate for inclusion. > > > > > 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? Well, that's an amusing translation :) but it isn't what I had in mind. I for one find that the Interpretation Properties approach *does* match my user intuition. David > > 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 > > > > > > > -- David Booth, Ph.D. Cleveland Clinic (contractor) Opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of Cleveland Clinic.
Received on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 17:11:43 UTC