- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Nov 2001 12:34:11 -0000
- To: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Somewhat serious suggestion: --------------------------- I suggest we refer to the two datatyping proposals as P and S. P for Pat or Peter. S for Sergey. Pretty pointless paragraphs: ---------------------------- This has the advantage that we can then each think of the two approaches with our own personal prejudices. Perfect, Splendid or Pointless, Silly. Moreover we could limit all future e-mails on datatyping to one word per message. e.g. "Positive" would be support for P. "Standard" for S. Our new recruit, as a special dispensation, would be allowed to send extra long, two word e-mails, such as "Patrick Stickler". This would of course leave us none-the-wiser as to which of the positions he advocated, perhaps both. When the mud-slinging begins, it can be concise: "Paludal", "Sodden" An important advantage is that we then have a termination proof for our datatyping discussion: the P and the S sections of the dictionary are both finite. Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 6 November 2001 07:34:22 UTC