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

Re: Datatyping: new medium-range proposal from HP

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Oct 2002 11:36:18 +0300
Message-ID: <004d01c26ab7$f1a3d2c0$614416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

This mid-range proposal does not alleviate the need to have
to modify all deployed content employing inlined literals
with presumed value-based semantics.

Unless, of course, RDF were to also be provided an include
mechanism so that "wrappers" could be put around all such
legacy instances to provide the syntax-based datatyping


[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 03 October, 2002 11:09
Subject: Re: Datatyping: new medium-range proposal from HP

> At 17:19 02/10/2002 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
> >Summary: use file scope syntactic datatyping mechanism.
> I was really pleased to see this proposal, not particularly because of its 
> specific merits, but because it suggests that there may be acceptable 
> compromise positions around which the WG might be able to build a consensus.
> I will allocate some time to discuss this proposal at the next 
> telecon.  You might like to think about the following questions:
>    o does it better meet collective 'requirements' than tidy or untidy alone?
>    o what are its disadvantages?  Are they acceptable?  Do you have a 
> suggestion for a modification which would eliminate/ameliorate these 
> disadvantages?
>    o do you have an alternative suggestion that would better meet our 
> collective requirements?
> Brian
Received on Thursday, 3 October 2002 04:49:43 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:16 UTC