- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 01 Nov 2001 17:12:23 +0000
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Sergey Melnik wrote: > Folks (esp. Pat), > > I'd like to keep the fruitful momentum around datatyping. +1 [...] > However, I > think the datatyping discussion needs some well-defined deliverables. > One of them could be to specify how XML Datatypes (at least the > primitive ones) should (or SHOULD) be used in RDF. As I see it the following deliverables are related to this discussion: o the core RDF specs, specifically the model theory, schema and the primer are all affected o from the charter: provide an account of the relationship between RDF and the XML family of technologies (particularly Schemas and Infoset/Query) We got into this by way of trying to understand what literals are in RDF, looking first at xml:lang and then at rdf:parseType="Literal". It doesn't seem reasonable to make a decision about those issues in isolation from datatyping question. I think the expectation is that the second of these deliverables would be a W3C note, not a normative document. Is that what you had in mind Sergey? >I'd like to suggest > that we vote on this deliverable next Friday. As I recall, you accepted an action from the chair to write up, for circulation and review by the community, an approach to datatyping in RDF. Checking http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0581.html no action is recorded :( We can formalise that this week. > > <SUG2> was to focus on representing typing info in the triple > structure. To my knowledge, there haven't been any public objections > so far. Several schemes discussed on the list recently were in synch > with SUG2. It seems that we are already going down the SUG2 path, so > maybe voting is not even necessary - but it would be nice to do so for > the record. I have been concerned about the implementation costs of the triples approach, but I'd like to have some real implementation experience to back that up with. I do know that Jena's current implemenatation of reification, where it tries to not store the 4 triples separately, but just store the statement once, with an isReified flag, is unsatisfactory. I'm nervous that we'll be creating a similar problem here. Jeremy's post of Andy Seaborne's comments is in a similar vein. However, if I've groked what Pat is upto correctly, then I think I can see how to address these implementation concerns. So going down the triples route is ok with me. I do think we will need to get real implementation experience though. Brian
Received on Thursday, 1 November 2001 12:19:55 UTC