Re: Reopening tidy/untidy decision

_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	Re: Reopening tidy/untidy decision
Sender:	ext Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date:		Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:20:54 +0300


> I ask that the proponents of string-based (tidy) semantics
> present their arguments to the WG in the same manner
> as the proponents of value-based (untidy) semantics were
> asked to do prior ro last Friday's vote.

Eric asked in a honest way

	I found Eric's message to be quite congenial and
	diplomatic, but did not percieve any such request
	in its content.

	On behalf of Nokia, I again  ask for formal arguments 
	from those proponents of tidy semantics.My collegues
	have expressed interest in reviewing such arguments
	and I myself am unnable to concieve of any that would
	be motivating. So those who have strong support
	of tidy could and should provide these to the WG.

	Surely there must be at least one good argument in
	support of tidy, other than the inconvenience of having
	to modify code, which folks have had to do alot of
	anyway and I don't recall any loud complaints before...

> > Our deadline has passed. Please look again at this decision and give
> > careful consideration to the impact on the WG schedule.

so let's have a *silent* look and give what he asks

	No sir. The proponents of tidy semantics have a clear
	obligation to (attempt to) demonstrate the superiority
	of their position if any decision is to be made on this
	issue.

	Otherwise, I repeat my earlier proposal, that the MT
	assign no interpretation to inline literals whatsoever,
	such that no entailments involving inline literals can
	be made and they remain semantic "wildcards" and,
	for now, dependent on extra-RDF application layers
	for interpretation. Likewise, whether rdfs:range
	assertions apply to inline literals is up to the 
	application.

	Maybe it then can be sorted out for RDF 2.0
	after some additional implementational experience.

	Patrick

Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 01:47:33 UTC