W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > October 2001

Reject change to rdf:value (was Re: Comments to item 11 of agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2001-10-26)

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 26 Oct 2001 16:29:44 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101006b7ff83de0571@[]>
To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>As I won't be there, can I request that a reference to this message 
>be entered into the IRC log of the meeting, for the record?
>>11: Postpone 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 postponed for 
>>consideration by a future WG
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-quoting
>>   http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-replace-value
>[I missed this when it was raised]  I like this proposal, as it 
>makes much more intuitive sense to me, and leverages existing 
>developer understanding of toString() in existing programming 
>languages.  Assuming it's consistent with any decisions about 
>datatyping, I think there would be value to our current charter in 
>adopting this.
>To deal with backward compatibility, I'd suggest that rdf:value be 
>retained as a "deprecated" form, equivalent to rdf:toString, which 
>becomes the preferred form.
>Thus, my vote is AGAINST deciding to defer this issue to a new WG at 
>this time.  I think the proposal should be accepted or rejected by 
>this WG.

If it is being considered, then I vote to REJECT it, for reasons that 
I hope will become clear when I get the MT datatyping document 
finished. (Basically, the appropriate interpretation of rdf:value in 
the new MT is that it is simply identity, and the 'toString' name is 
then actively misleading. This view of the meaning of rdf:value has 
built into it a view about datatyping that I want to argue against, 
basically one which assumes that all literals occurrences are 
strings.  I think that it only makes intuitive sense if one agrees to 
read all literals as referring to themselves, which, I will argue, 
embodies a use/mention confusion which is neither semantically 
productive nor necessary.)

IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 26 October 2001 17:29:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:05 UTC