Re: URIs for primitive datatypes and facets? (CR-48)

From: Dan Connolly ([email protected])
Date: 02/17/01

Dan Connolly wrote:
> > From: "Martin Gudgin" <[email protected]>
> > Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 16:01:39 -0000
> [...]
> >
> > You're correct that the schema annotation says that the explicit xpointer
> > version of the URI is the 'correct' one. Personally I think I prefer the
> > shorthand. Perhaps you/we could raise this as an agenda item and try to get
> > it changed to be the shorthand version?
> I'm very interested to know how this turns out; I see that
> the chair proposes to decline our request,
> but I don't see the final disposition/wg-decision.

Oops... there it is:

"The Schema Working Group declined to make the proposed change.

It would be helpful to us to know whether you are satisfied with the
decision taken by the WG on this issue, or wish your dissent from the
WG's decision to be recorded for consideration by the Director of
the W3C.
--Martin Gudgin 22 Jan 2001

I suppose I'm a little late now, but no, without technical
rationale for why the change was declined, I don't find
it acceptable.

> www-rdf-logic and joint-committee folks, if you have an opinion
> about whether #xpointer(id("date")) is acceptable, or whether
> it's an undue implementation burden, compared with #date, please
> speak up now.
> The implementation burden is something like what Sandro described:
> [[[
>     We can solve this easily for the standard datatypes by putting all
>     the classes in some ontology, publishing the classes you've been
>     using (and using a nicer identifier syntax).
> ]]]
> --        [email protected] from February 2001: a few issues with
> daml
> Fri, 16 Feb 2001 14:42:07 GMT

Dan Connolly, W3C

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