Re: Choosing the best of three alternatives

Thanks, Jos.

Patrick

----- Original Message -----
From: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo@agfa.com>
To: <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>; <duerst@w3.org>; "Patrick
Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>; <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>; "rdf core"
<w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sent: 11 July, 2003 15:05
Subject: Re: Choosing the best of three alternatives


>
> Good work Patrick ;-)
> my straw is
>
> Alternative 0: can live with
> Alternative 1: preferred
> Alternative 2: abstain
>
> have a nice telecon
>
> --
> Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
>
>
>
>                       "Patrick Stickler"
>                       <patrick.stickler@        To:       "Patrick
Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "ext Brian McBride"
>                       nokia.com>                 <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
>                       Sent by:                  cc:       "rdf core"
<w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <duerst@w3.org>, <w3c-i18n-ig@w3.org>
>                       w3c-rdfcore-wg-req        Subject:  Choosing the
best of three alternatives
>                       uest@w3.org
>
>
>                       2003-07-11 11:23
>                       AM
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> It would be useful, I think, if we could have a straw poll, either
> during today's telecon or via email, between the following three
> alternatives for the treatment of XML literals.
>
> Votes should be "prefer", "can't live with", "can live with". Only
> one alternative should be specified as preferred.
>
> --
>
> Alternative 0:   (no change)
>
> As defined presently in the RDF specifications.
>
> - two types of literals: plain and typed
> - XML literals treated as typed literals
> - lang tag can be associated with plain literals
> - no lang tag associated with typed literals, including XML literals
> - clear distinction between plain literals and XML literals
>
> --
>
> Alternative 1:
>
> As defined in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0131.html
>
> - two types of literals: plain and typed
> - XML literals treated same as plain literals
> - lang tag can be associated with plain literals, including XML literals
> - no lang tag associated with typed literals
> - no distinction between plain literals and XML literals
>
> ** Changes to RDF/XML syntax
>
> --
>
> Alternative 2:
>
> As defined in
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jul/0151.html
>
> - three types of literals: plain, XML, and typed
> - XML literals treated distinct from plain literals
> - lang tag can be associated with both plain literals and XML literals
> - no lang tag associated with typed literals
> - clear distinction between plain literals and XML literals
>
> ** Changes to RDF/XML syntax, Graph syntax, N-Triples syntax, and MT
>
> --
>
> All of the above options fall within the scope of known territory for
> the WG insofar as the MT and RDF/XML syntax is concerned and
> do not introduce any new substantive issues. It's really a matter
> of practical and cosmetic reorganization rather than a change
> in power of expression.
>
> Pat's recent comments suggest that alternative 1 would not require
> any changes, or at least any substantive changes to the MT. Clearly
> alternative 2 above would require reinstitution of some content from
> previous drafts dealing with distinct XML literals and the entire MT
> rechecked for consistency.
>
> None of the above options are perfect for all use cases.
>
> We need to choose whichever option seems most optimal, including
> meeting the internationalization concerns of the I18N WG.
>
> Clearly the impact of alternative 2 is substantially greater than for
> alternative 1. Perhaps it's warranted. The straw poll will show.
>
> --
>
> My vote is:
>
> Alternative 0: can live with
> Alternative 1: preferred
> Alternative 2: can live with
>
> Cheers,
>
> Patrick
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Received on Friday, 11 July 2003 09:04:00 UTC