Re: agenda for rdfcore 2003-09-12 telecon

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>
>
>
> 9:  Brian's alternate design writeup: summary of pros/cons
>
> See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0099.html and
> subsequent discussion.
>
> 	If I am absent, please record my objection
> 	to Brian's "discussed" design, on the (primary)
> 	basis of backwards incompatibility.
>
> 12: " 3 "^^xsd:integer / xml schema and whitespace: can this be wrapped up?
>
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Sep/0085.html generated
> a huge amount of traffic. Where are we up to?
>
> 	I would like to officially propose that the WG's
> 	last decision, to not fudge and to remove the
> 	problemmatic test cases (due to ambiguity
> 	in the XML Schema specs) to be upheld and
> 	that no changes be made to our design nor no
> 	attempt be made by us to interpret/clarify the
> 	XML Schema specs.

While I'm ambivalent about the resolution of xmlsch-02, I'd like to
propose we keep the test cases involved:

- they represent our considered opinion on the xmlsch-02. I've heard
PatS argue strongly that the situation in those test cases is _exactly_
what the XML schema specs say; there certainly appears to be no
ambiguity in his interpretation of those.

- this appears to be a point where interop between implementations may
fall down.

On the other hand:

- we've had implementor feedback that existing XML/XSD libraries don't
do the right thing;

- I'm sorry to say that I have the impression that the withdrawal of
this test case was motivated by the desire to "smoothe the process".

I expect to be at the meeting; in any case unless there's a better
technical argument I object to the removal of the test cases in
question.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287088 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 http://ioctl.org/jan/
Political talk? / What is said can be unsaid / with good old BS
  -- ASCII haiku

Received on Friday, 12 September 2003 06:35:30 UTC