RE: xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure proposal to close

I think we could simply say that the particular approach suggested
would require literals as subjects and that was precluded by the charger.

Trying to say more (especially mentioning monotonicity issues, etc.)
is just going to open up yet another lengthy discussion about the
myriad of options we've already worked through.

Cheers,

Patrick
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hpl.hp.com]
> Sent: 23 April, 2003 11:20
> To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Subject: RE: xmlsch-01 Typed Literal Structure proposal to close
> 
> 
> 
> Patrick:
> > Hmmm....  sorry, but I don't myself buy that explanation.
> 
> Did you prefer Brian's text? - he talked about both literals 
> as subjects and 
> non-monotonicity.
> He certainly phrased it more gently, which is a good thing.
> 
> 
> My view is that the crucial test cases that determined the 
> current design were 
> ones like
> 
> <jenny> age "10" .
> <film> title "10" .
> 
> entails
> 
> <jenny> age _:b .
> <film> title _:b .
> 
> I was trying to indicate that without getting into detail.
> 
> (Patrick both you and I disagreed with the WG decision on 
> this test case; 
> however, that does not mean that we cannot try and articulate 
> why, having 
> decided this test case, much of the rest falls into place. I 
> would ceratinly 
> agree that the WG could have gone the other way, and not had 
> a monotonicity 
> problem with global datatyping)
> 
> Jeremy
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 23 April 2003 09:15:45 UTC