From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider (pfps@research.bell-labs.com)
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 issues: 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 representation. 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 http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/Datatypes-jan-01 B/ The proposal by Dan Connolly at http://www.w3.org.2001.01.ct24 C/ The current proposal by Ian and myself, prepared last week, at http://www.cs.man.ac.uk/~horrocks/daml+oil/Datatypes/ 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