summary of status with respect to datatypes

From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (
Date: 02/22/01

Given that Frank doesn't seem to have produced one of his excellent
summaries for this week's teleconference, let me give it a try.  I will also
include some summarization of the meeting in Washington.

The situation with respect to datatypes appears to contentious over two

1/ Whether the datatype is required to be given along with the lexical
representation, or is permitted to be given along with the lexical
representation, or is forbidden to be given along with the lexical

2/ Whether there is one (direct) relationship between an abstract object
and a datatype value or several, one going to the lexical representation
and another (or others) going to the value itself.

There were three proposals that had been put forward:

A/ An older proposal by Ian and myself of several weeks ago, at
B/ The proposal by Dan Connolly at
C/ The current proposal by Ian and myself, prepared last week, at

They stack up in the following manner:

Proposal	    Issue Status
		1		2

A		permit		one

B		forbid		several

C		require		one

So far, nothing should be too controversial

Now for some (perhaps) more contentious summarization:

At the meeting in Washington, there was general agreement that the proposal
by Ian and myself was the way to go.  Ian and I revised the proposal to the
current proposal above.  After considerable discussion at this week's
teleconference a decision to go with the current proposal, ``as the best we
can do right now''.  To that end Ian, Frank, and I are revising the example,
walkthrough, and reference documents to result in a complete proposal.
The example and walkthrough have gone through an initial round of editing
and are available at the website above.

Peter Patel-Schneider

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