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

Re: datatypes input

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: 18 Jul 2002 10:18:18 -0500
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-Id: <1027005499.27663.257.camel@dirk>

On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 09:40, Brian McBride wrote:
> At 08:51 18/07/2002 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> >On Thu, 2002-07-18 at 05:54, Brian McBride wrote:
> > >
> > > I've just sent summaries of the results so far:
> > >
> > >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-rdf-interest/2002Jul/0073.html
> > >
> > > Untidy is in the lead.
> >
> >This isn't a popularity contest, is it?
> Err, well, err.. yes.

OK, I misunderstood then.

If this were an arbitrary decision, such as what
to rename rdf:value to, I could see making it
a popularity contest.

But this is a technical issue with significant impact.
My position is not likely to be swayed by popular opinion.

> >We're collecting ideas, not votes, right?
> We got to the point in our analysis where it seemed like it came down to a 
> choice of which functionality was more important, the entailment you 
> suggested or the Cannes entailment.

Is the Cannes entailment the thing that was called Jeremy's entailment
in http://www.w3.org/2001/sw/RDFCore/20020225-f2f/#d-2002-02-26-3 ?

That can be handled without resorting to untidy literals.

I did some test cases to show that a while ago...

I guess I don't have time to keep up. Sorry.

> My understanding is that we decided to ask the community which of these 
> they thought was more important.  This we are doing.  After one of the two 
> weeks allowed for feedback have elapsed, there indications are that the 
> segment of the community which is responding is favoring untidy.
> Brian
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 July 2002 11:19:22 UTC

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