- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 12:20:50 +0200
- To: phayes@ai.uwf.edu
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> As far as I can make out from the above, the URV proposal is in fact > just a syntactic sugaring of the DC proposal, It is not just syntactic sugar, in that the URV form results in a different graph than the DC form and thus allows for substantial compression of graph real estate, but it is very similar to the DC form in that there is a 1:1 correlation with regards to interpretation. > which was taken out of > the running in todays telecon; so we should treat the U proposal as > also taken out of the running. I never offered the U proposal as an all-or-nothing choice. I offered it as providing a definition of what data typing really involves with regards to RDF -- namely, the pairing of a lexical form with a data type identifier. That's all. There are other ways to define that pairing. My recent recommendation defines three (of which URVs are one). The other two are rdfs:range and something analogous to the DC proposal, though with slightly different vocabulary. I have come to think that all of the proposals which require a redefinition of the graph model, or a departure from common practice, or which cannot be expressed *efficiently* in RDF/XML should be rejected. That includes X, S, P, and P++, insofar as I understand them. Patrick
Received on Monday, 19 November 2001 05:21:00 UTC