Re: Concrete types: next steps?

From: Jim Hendler (
Date: 02/01/01

  been following the conc. types argument but staying quiet (a rarity 
for me).  I don't feel strongly on the issue, although I have a 
suspicion that I tend to side with Dan and Tim away from a strong 
  I do want to propose a way forward - based on my now infamous "no 
aesthetic arguments" edict -- what I really meant was that when we 
had issues that seemed to have multiple ways ahead, instead of 
arguing based on "what looked good" we would try to propose some use 
cases that required the new features (i.e. start with a relatively 
minimal language, add features only when people said "i need an X" 
and showed the current language really couldn't handle it, and not 
worry too much about things that could be mapped to one another by 
the computer)
  In this case, Dan has created an example in his mailing about using 
the XML schema types in RDF.  When I tried back of the envelope to 
translate these into the Peter/Ian style (whcih I admit I did very 
quickly and ad hoc) I didn't see a lot of problems with doing so
  So I find myself asking for some specific examples of the 
DIFFERENCES between the two approaches in terms of something I can DO 
in one and not in the other (yes Peter, I know there are semantic and 
computational differences, but I'm a stupid DARPA guy and can't 
understand these deep issues - I need to see some practical examples)
  Can someone help me puzzle this out -- it seems these two aren't 
mappable (based on Peter's eloquent explanation of the three ways 
these can be split), but I also cannot seem to come up with a strong 
example of a use case for one that defeats the other...
Prof. James Hendler		Program Manager
DARPA/ISO			703-696-2238 (phone)
3701 N. Fairfax Dr.		703-696-2201 (Fax)
Arlington, VA 22203

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST