RE: (offlist) Re: Datatyping Summary

Graham,

I found your message very helpful.

It is clearly logically correct.

Our general approach to discussion in the WG does try to treat issues in
isolation, and that can lead to problems.

The need to release a new draft of TDL with the model theory revisions in it
is clear, and is moving up my todo list.

Jeremy

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Graham Klyne [mailto:Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 09:48
> To: Patrick Stickler
> Cc: Jeremy Carroll; Brian McBride; www-archive@w3.org
> Subject: 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.
>
> #g
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------
> Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
> Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
>         __
>        /\ \
>       /  \ \
>      / /\ \ \
>     / / /\ \ \
>    / / /__\_\ \
>   / / /________\
>   \/___________/
>
>
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 06:49:33 UTC