- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 19:45:25 +0100
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Brian McBride wrote: > At 13:39 08/05/2003 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > > >> These are for the Option 1 and Option 3, I will keep those names. >> >> Both options: >> >> PROPOSE reopen >> pfps-08 reagle-01 reagle-02 > > > This looks like a larger change than I had realised. > The reopen these issues is essentially a formal device for indicating that in my opinion we should notify pfps, reagle, and the others of any changes to rdf:XMLLiteral that we make. Option 2, which had no support on the list, makes no changes to XMLLiteral and hence would not require this. > Can someone clearly state what advantage is gained from this. > > Brian > If we were to go with option 3 in particular, (but to a lesser extent option 1), we have made a change that allows us to be more positive about pfps-08 - that seems like an advantage. Having the language tags on the xsd typed literals is decidedly odd - so option 2 seems like a no-brainer (that really is the small change of just syntactically omitting semantically irrelevant language tags for the types other than rdf:XMLLiteral) - we then have to decide whether we are happy to have rdf:XMLLiteral as both a syntactic and semantic anomolous datatype or fix it - either option 1 by not having it as a datatype or option 3 by not having anomolous. I think either of those are advantageous. Maybe not sufficiently so. Jeremy
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 14:45:45 UTC