Comments to Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-10-26

As I won't be present, my comments to some issues below:

At 04:02 PM 10/25/01 +0100, bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com wrote:

>6: Confirm Status of Completed Actions
>
>ACTION: 2001-10-19#11 Sergey
>to post text attempting to state the two options, ASAP
>
>see:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0530.html

OK, but I'd draw attention to the start of section 2 as addressing (and 
completing) the specific action.  There is also much other material in this 
message.


>7: Propose resolution of whether graphs are sets or bags
>
>Propose the WG ACTION Pat to ensure that:
>
>    the model theory uses tidy graphs from which duplicate arcs have been 
> removed
>
>Further the WG notes that:
>
>   o an RDF/XML document may represent an untidy graph which contains 
> duplicate arcs
>
>   o an n-triples document may represent an untidy graph which contains 
> duplicate arcs
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0489.html
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0496.html

I like the direction here, and am happy to let the experts propose details.


>11: Postpone syntax issues

[See separate message]


>12: Close syntax issues
>The aim here is to quickly resolve those issues for which there is clear 
>concensus.  If extended discussion is needed, we will postpone the decision.
>
>Propose the WG RESOLVE that the following issues be closed on the grounds 
>that they are resolved by the new approach taken to defining the syntax.
>
>See:
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-syntax-desc-clarity
>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-formal-grammar

OK  ( ... but on the grounds that they *will be* resolved by the new 
approach taken to defining the syntax?)


>13: Datatyping:  Review Sergey's analysis and proposal
>
>See:
>   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0530.html

I'm not sure exactly what the "proposal" is here.  And I can't see if the 
Model Theory approach to data typing being worked up by Peter-FPS and Pat 
is really covered here.

Concerning the specific suggestions:

<SUG1> - I have no strong view (though I'd be reluctant to require our 
readers to also read [UML] and [CWM]?).  Being able to use XSD datatypes 
seems to be a given for this forum, though I'd prefer we were not limited 
to the primitive datatypes introduced there.  (I've already bemoaned the 
lack of arbitrary rational numbers in XSD primitive datatypes.)

<SUG2> - I generally favour of this, but it seems to me that attempts to do 
this without some level of additional model theory support have their own 
difficulties
(see my message:
   http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0411.html>).

<SUG3> - unless I am missing something here (which I suspect I am), I've 
seen plenty of use-cases where this just doesn't cut the mustard.  Hence, I 
don't find myself agreeing with:
[[[
Regarding the model theory for datatyping, I don't think that
datatyping needs some special treatment if we go along with <SUG2> and
<SUG3>. Of course, it would be fine to introduce a "shortcut" notation
for datatyping in the model theory if necessary, just like ICEXT is
defined as a shortcut in the MT draft.
]]]
(a) I think we'll want some kind of MT support for datatyping.
(b) "shortcut" sounds to me like a syntactic issue, so doesn't help us 
remove required MT support.

[...]

#g


------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 09:38:30 UTC