From: Dan Connolly (connolly@w3.org)
Date: 02/22/01
"Peter F. Patel-Schneider" wrote: > > 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 er... rather 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 Just one? A doesn't allow that if there's a relationship between, say, x and y, and another between y and z, that there's another relationship between x and z? How does it achieve that? Perhaps you meant something by "direct" that I don't understand? > B forbid several no, giving the datatype inline not forbidden; it's explicitly licensed: [[[ So that the value corresponding to the numeral 10.0 can be written <xsd:decimal xmlns:xsd="http://www.w3.org/2000/10/XMLSchema#"> <rdf:value>10.0</rdf:value> </xsd:decimal> ]]] -- Using XML Schema Datatypes in RDF and DAML+OIL http://www.w3.org/2001/01/ct24 Thu, 15 Feb 2001 22:23:12 GMT that example is equivalent, by the definition of RDF syntax, assuming the same namespace declarations in effect, to: <xsd:decimal rdf:value="10.0"/> That example has been in ct24 since revision 1.5 date: 2001/01/12 03:56:32. > C require one > > So far, nothing should be too controversial Well... except that your summary of B has little resemblance to what I wrote. > 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. Right... at the time, I didn't see it as inconsistent with my proposal; I didn't realize that allowing folks to state other interesting constraints (like the relationship between a property that takes a decimal and a property that takes the corresponding numeral) introduces unacceptable issues w.r.t. decidability. (I gather Ian provided a reference, for the minutes of our last meeting, to the technical details, for which thanks; I look forward to studying it.) > 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''. Right; with a note in the spec calling out the issue. > To that end Ian, Frank, and I are revising the example, > walkthrough, and reference documents to result in a complete proposal. It's fair to say "... in a complete revision of the spec this group is producing." No need to call it a proposal any longer. Many thanks, by the way. > The example and walkthrough have gone through an initial round of editing > and are available at the website above. > > Peter Patel-Schneider -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/ office: tel:+1-913-491-0501 pager: mailto:connolly.pager@w3.org (put return phone number in from/subject)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST