- 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>
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... http://www.w3.org/2000/10/swap/test/datatypeAtoB.n3 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