- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 13:56:23 -0000
- To: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I feel Patrick has raised some legimate issues here. Principally, I understand his message as a vote in the "cannot live with" category against S; with a coherent explanantion of why: backward compatibility. An additional aspect that has come up on WOW is that S is not consistent with standard XML usage in which strings are implicitly type converted as necessary e.g. <record> <name>Fred</name> <age>40</age> </record> I, too, feel much more confortable with P, with some additional typing mechanism, such as that suggested by Patrick. > I.e.: > > SUBJ PRED _:OBJ . > _:OBJ rdf:value "LIT" . > _:OBJ rdf:type TYPE . > > and/or > > SUBJ PRED "LIT" . > PRED rdfs:range TYPE . I am increasingly concerned about how many changes we feel entitled to make under our charter. I agree with Patrick that S is explicitly out of scope according to our current charter. I am concerned that the chair is taking an increasingly broad view of what changes we may make. However, I have not strongly objected to S, and continue to not do so, on the understanding that we were explicitly permitting our datatyping discussions to go out of charter. i.e. I believe our intent was to make the *right* decision on datatyping, and then, if that decision was not one we could make within our charter we would seek a modification of our charter. I do not think that S is the right decision, but, apparantly unlike Patrick, I think I can live with it. Jeremy
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 08:56:54 UTC