W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > January 2003

Re: datatyping: local and global

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>
Message-ID: <PX3P7mHM2Nrx.mK7bqBMH@mail.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.


_____________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?


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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 22:44:40 UTC