W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > August 2002

Re: What the #@&*$(!@ is going on here?! (was RE: N-Triples for proposed xsi:type [was Re: xsi:type test case ]

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 07 Aug 2002 12:32:58 -0500
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <1028741581.17566.72.camel@jammer>

Your question seems to be addressed to the chair.
Note that Brian is on holiday and EricM is ill.

On Wed, 2002-08-07 at 06:00, Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com wrote:
> I am *very* bothered by these recent proposals based on xsi:type.
> I fear they are coming too fast, too late, and are blurring
> the distinction between XML and RDF, the serialization and the graph.
> They also do not take into consideration, from what I can see,
> how they relate to RDF typing (a'la rdf:type) and range semantics.
> And of course, the don't even begin to address global/implicit
> typing and the inline idiom.
> The WG reached IMO full concensus on a local/explicit datatyping

At W3C, WG consensus is not a matter of opinion; it's a matter
of record. We have reached consensus iff it's recorded
that we did (and the record has been reviewed, etc).

And keep in mind that meeting records are somewhat ephemeral.
The fat lady has not sung until we've published a WD,
gotten community feedback, considered it, and decided we're

This WG has not gotten any where near there for datatypes.

> idiom, as well as its associated semantics. Why then are we now
> considering another local idiom -- especially one which requires
> changes to the graph syntax and essentially duplicates the 
> globally unambiguous and tidy nature of URIs?!
> I feel that there is a point of order to be addressed here. I did
> not see in any minutes that the concensus agreed to in Bristol has 
> now been discarded,

It's not clear that there were any relevant WG decisions
in Bristol; the record is in dispute:

> and the xsi:type proposal is not compatable with
> the WG concensus at the f2f in Bristol.

I don't see how that makes the proposal out of order.
Adopting the proposal might involve reversing earlier decisions.
That's part of life, no?

We haven't even seen the proposal yet. (er.. I haven't, anyway).

> Could someone please point me to such. If no'one can, then could
> someone explain to me why it is acceptable for such a radical proposal
> to be considered at such a late stage in the process, particularly
> since it seeks to replace mechanisms for which we already had
> WG concensus?!

Because we didn't have WG consensus; not in the form of a published,
reviewed WD. And it's not even 100% clear that we had a
recorded WG decisions.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 7 August 2002 13:33:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:14 UTC