- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 17:08:00 +0000
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 15:43 24/02/2002 -0600, Pat Hayes wrote:
>http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/users/phayes/simpledatatype23-02-2002.html
>
>now has a diagram in it which might make it clearer
Following the process we agreed at the f2f:
I suggest the this proposal has the following two problems:
o it does not implement the decision (as I understood it) to
remove the doublet idiom.
o it still provides redundant ways to the user of saying the
same thing - introducing unnecessary complexity
I'm surprised to see dlex still present; I know Pat mentioned it
on the telecon; I should have sought clarification of the comment.
Is dlex really necessary?
[[
Sometimes one wishes to associate a literal with a value without specifying
a particular datatype.
]]
This does not seem to me be a strong need for this from the user's point of
view. Does this need come from a technical requirement of the model theory?
I suppose this message comes down to:
o is dlex necessary
o if it is necessary for the model theory, can it be hidden in the model
theory and not exposed to the user.
Brian
Received on Friday, 1 March 2002 12:09:33 UTC