- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Nov 2001 08:36:22 -0600
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > 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. All of my code and all of the code I've seen from other apps assumes that the object of <dc:title>abc</dc:title> is a string of 3 characters. S is completely backwards compatible with this. > 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> Note that it'sn not the XML parser that type converts "40", but the application that knows about <age>. The analagous situation in RDF is: the object of <age> is a string, and the range of the age property is a numeral, not a number. [this is the case in S] > 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. You see S as a change? I don't. It's the way I've read the RDF spec since 1997 or so. > 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 > -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Monday, 26 November 2001 09:36:24 UTC