- From: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 10:56:35 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, Martin Duerst <duerst@w3.org>
>On Thu, 2003-07-03 at 02:52, pat hayes wrote: > >[...] > >> >> Since this issue seems to be so centrally important, and since our >> design now appears to people like Martin to be so completely >> brain-damaged, let me propose that we re-open this issue and change >> our design slightly, > >Pat, thank you for this proposal (in the same sense of thank you as in >"thank you for slapping me about the face with a wet fish"). Well, sorry about the wet fish. I thought maybe we could do this quickly as a simplification and reversion to an older design that nobody was too unhappy with at the time. Hah, silly me. >Please could you hold that thought for now. > >My preferred approach to this discussion is first of all to determine >whether the simpler, and I suspect less controversial, solution of >reintroducing the wrapper would satisfy i18n so far as issue b) is >concerned, which I'm hopeful it would. Well, but reintroducing the wrapper will cause other people to start complaining. And although I have been deliberately keeping quiet about this in the past since XML stuff isn't my baliwick, and we had finally managed to get rid of it, I think the wrapper idea is terrible. It is hard to think of a worse design from an RDF/XML point of view. I also think that making rdf:XMLLiteral into a datatype was a mistake on other (semantic) grounds, but again I have been deliberately not rocking the boat. But since Martin tells us that the boat has a hole in it, and one can see that the hole was caused by one of our decisions, seems to me that there is an obvious way to repair it. And by the way, if you read the current version of the Semantics, you will see that the entire semantics for XML literals in RDF is stated without actually mentioning or requiring that it be considered a datatype: in fact, rdf:XMLLiteral rdf:type rdfs:Datatype . isnt even true in RDF interpretations. So the change would be trivial from the semantic, syntactic and Ntriples points of view. The only substantial change would be to the Concepts document. >RDFCore can then decide whether to accept I18N's arguments that the >present design should be changed. *If* they do, then they can decide >how best to address those requirements. > >Can you live with that? I bow to your Chairmanship and will not pursue the matter for now. Just put on record that I think Jeremy's arguments are spurious, that Martin's opinion should be taken as authoritative on I18N matters, that Patrick's response is beside the point, and that I will argue the points vigorously if the discussion continues. Pat >Brian > >The WG -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32501 (850)291 0667 cell phayes@ihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Thursday, 3 July 2003 11:57:38 UTC