Re: (offlist) Re: Datatyping Summary

At 09:12 AM 1/30/02 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> > I find this completely non sequitur.
> >
> > If any show stopper can be removed by introduction of a different show
> > stopper, that doesn't mean there are no show stoppers.
>I'm not sure I follow you there. Both Dan and Sergey in their "can't
>live with S" postings focused primarily on the fact that because TDL
>presumed untidy literal nodes, it was fundamentally broken. I.e.

OK, let's back up.  The original show stopper in this case was, in my view, 
the lack of self-entailment of a document, which was in turn a consequence 
of the treatment of untidy literal nodes.

Jeremy offered a proposal that overcame the self-entailment problem, but 
which required a fundamental change to the handling of RDF (relative to at 
least DanC's and my understanding).

The non sequitur here is:

   Proposal A is broken for reason of problem B.

   Proposal C fixes problem B

   =>  Proposal A+C is not broken.

Roughly, you have to consider the wider picture,  you can't just pick off 
problems in isolation.


Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <>
       /\ \
      /  \ \
     / /\ \ \
    / / /\ \ \
   / / /__\_\ \
  / / /________\

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 05:35:44 UTC