- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:34:32 +0100
- To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org, "ext Art.Barstow@nokia.com" <Art.Barstow@nokia.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Proposal F was my proposal, which at the first vote was adopted by the WG by a narrow margin. Then DanC and Brian did their politiking, threw out the WG vote, and held a re-vote where the present solution was adopted, by as close a margin. It hinges on a short trm/long term view. Even those who would have preferred option F as better overall, chose the other option since it had the lowest imediate impact to their apps. Patrick _____________Original message ____________ Subject: datatyping: local and global Sender: ext Art.Barstow@nokia.com <Art.Barstow@nokia.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:30:08 +0100 In Mike Dean's formal objection to the Datatyping Solution proposed in the Jan 23 LC WD docs [1], one of the alternate proposals he suggests is: [[ an RDF datatyping approach that includes global datatyping (as in Proposal F from [4]) possibly with optional local datatyping ]] Did the RDF Core WG consider such an option (to support both local and global datatyping)? If so, why was it rejected? Regards, Art Barstow --- [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2003Jan/0173.html
Received on Wednesday, 29 January 2003 04:44:34 UTC