Re: Distributing Datatypes Part 1 amongst the other docs

I'm inclined to agree with this analysis... (and note that 2 or 3 RDF
developers have in last week or so mentioned a concern that we're
spawning too many specs to follow, so slimming down would be good).

Dan

On Thu, 5 Sep 2002, Brian McBride wrote:

>
> Assuming the new approach to datatypes, broadly as described in Part 1 of
> Patrick's document, continues to enjoy the support of the WG, the WG may
> like to consider distributing the contents of part 1 amongst the other
> specifications.
>
> It may seem a strange structure if, for example, the 'Concepts' document
> described the abstract syntax and concepts of RDF, but referred to a
> separate datatypes document for the datatypes bit.  And if it does not,
> then it must describe the complete abstract syntax and duplicate some of
> the datatypes document.  The same is true of the syntax document, the model
> theory, schema (I believe it is affected by datatypes now) and possibly the
> primer.
>
> We are now in a position where datatypes are no longer layered on top of
> the core RDF data model, but are an integral part of it.  We could describe
> datatyping in the specs as follows:
>
>    primer:     Introduction to using datatyped values in RDF
>    syntax:     rdf/xml representation of datatype values
>    concepts:   abstract syntax; concept of datatyped values
>    schema:     datatype vocabulary definitions; effects on domain and
> range; relationship
>                between literals and datatype literals
>    model th:   model theory for datatype values
>    test cases: n-triples
>
> I'm planning to allow some time in tomorrows telecon to discuss this
> approach.  If it finds support, it would be great if we could to the point
> of the various doc editors having actions to update their docs to describe
> datatyping.
>
> Brian
>

Received on Thursday, 5 September 2002 17:38:07 UTC