Re: Proposal to drop S from consideration

On Thu, 22 Nov 2001 Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:

>
>
> The S proposal adds unneeded machinery, seemingly requires
> redefinition of the semantics of rdfs:subPropertyOf in terms
> of data type properties versus non-data type properties, and
> requires a treatment of data typing that is incompatible with
> current usage.
>
> Furthermore, the S proposal is IMO generating more questions than
> it strives to answer, and demands a non-trivial amount of further
> work to fully understand its potential impact on the present use and
> understanding of RDF.
>
> Given that the goal of the WG is to clarify the current Recommendation,
> including the typing of literals in terms of the current Recommendation,
> then the S proposal seems to me to go well beyond the constraints of
> the charter, no matter how loosely one interprets it.

I suggest you re-read the charter, Patrick.

http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCoreWGCharter

[[
The RDF Core WG is chartered to complete the work on RDF vocabulary
description present in the RDF Schema Candidate Recommendation [..]
RDF Schema must be expressed in terms of the RDF model, and must use W3C
RDF syntax. RDF Schema must use and build upon XML Schema datatypes to the
fullest extent that is practical and appropriate. [etc...]
]]


Hmmm... haven't we been here before? Like 10 days ago?

From http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0325.html
[[
> > > I agree that RDF should use the XML Schema datatypes... i.e.
> > > the value spaces and corresponding lexical representations.
> >
> > Please, NO!

> Now I'm confused. If you read and agreed with our WG's charter before
> joining RDF Core, this should come as no suprise.
]]

Could you please confirm that you have read the charter.

There may be technical or deployment considerations that count against S,
but as far as I can see it is a reasonable fit with our charter.

Dan

>
> Changes which are as significant as those proposed by the S proposal
> should be deferred to a future (major) version of RDF.
>
> Therefore, I respectfully and humbly propose that the S proposal
> be dropped from consideration.
>
> I further propose that a combination of the P proposal (not P++) and
> a modified form of the DC proposal (changing rdfs:label to rdfs:value,
> per the current DAML usage) be adopted, providing two (already commonly
> used) means of pairing data type and resource, by typed anonymous node
> and/or rdfs:range implication.
>
> I.e.:
>
>      SUBJ PRED _:OBJ .
>      _:OBJ rdf:value "LIT" .
>      _:OBJ rdf:type TYPE .
>
> and/or
>
>      SUBJ PRED "LIT" .
>      PRED rdfs:range TYPE .
>
> Which both define the pairing ("LIT",TYPE) which uniquely denotes
> a value in the value space of TYPE.
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Patrick
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>
>
>
> --
>
> Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
> Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
> Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
>

Received on Thursday, 22 November 2001 05:25:00 UTC