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

Re: Datatypes Convergence

From: Daniel W. Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2002 14:31:36 -0500 (EST)
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
cc: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0202061423460.10098-100000@tux.w3.org>
On Wed, 6 Feb 2002, Brian McBride wrote:

> I'm really glad to see the progress made on datatypes this week.  I think
> we may have got to the point where can have a single proposal with some
> unresolved issues.  This would be magnificent progress from having two
> proposals.

Hmm... I'm not so sure...

> I therefore suggest that Sergey and PatrickS take an action jointly to
> prepare a converged datatyping proposal document and circulate it to the WG
> by Wed, 13th Feb 2002.  That document should be based on:
>    - using rdf:dType for datatyping

? why?

>    - that S-P/TDL is used for global typing

Why? Let's please promote S-B. It's evidently acceptable
to both PRISM and CC/pp.

>    - using Graham's doublet suggestion, as adopted by Pat to fix
>      the model theory

Sigh... the simplest model theory, as Jos suggested, just
has literals denote themselves. Let's please just stick
with this simple design.

>    - using the simpler of the two approaches suggested by Pat for the
>      model theory
>    - that <foo> <bar> "10" is untyped, as in current m&s, but a
>      syntactic transform can be used to turn it into a typed structure
>      with a b-node

??? Why?

It looks like more unmotivated complexity; it seems to fail
the B4 case just as badly as other non-S proposals.

This looks like a huge step backwards to me.

I don't like earlier TDL proposals, but I think I understand it now.
Likewise, I understand folks don't like S, but I think they understand it.
Please let's not explore alternatives that are so complex that nobody
understands them well enough to object.

> They key thing about this document is lock in the progress we have made, so
> if there are outstanding issues that are still unresolved, note them in the
> document and bring them back to the WG for comment.
> Of course, I'd love it if there weren't any.  I wouldn't expect this
> document to necessarily cover the model theory at this stage.

Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
pager: mailto:connolly+pager@w3.org
Received on Wednesday, 6 February 2002 14:32:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:09 UTC