w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.
The results of this questionnaire are available to anybody.
This questionnaire was open from 2011-09-07 to 2011-09-20.
16 answers have been received.
Jump to results for question:
Pat Hayes' email also gives some pros and cons that you might want to check.
Choice | All responders | |||
---|---|---|---|---|
No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes, and prefer | |
1. Current state: tagged literals have no type. | 2 | 10 | 1 | 3 |
2a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs. | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
2b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat. | 6 | 5 | 4 | 1 |
2c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat. | 6 | 5 | 5 | |
3a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal. | 7 | 4 | 4 | 1 |
3b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all. | 11 | 2 | 3 | |
4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping. | 11 | 1 | 1 | 3 |
2d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. | 2 | 3 | 7 | 3 |
Ranking of choices in order of least unacceptable/most prefered:
Ranks | All responders: |
---|---|
1 | 2d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. |
2 | 1. Current state: tagged literals have no type. |
3 | 2b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat. |
4 | 2a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs. |
5 | 2c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat. |
6 | 3a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal. |
7 | 4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping. |
8 | 3b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all. |
Responder | 1. Current state: tagged literals have no type. | 2a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. Abstract syntax is a pair <"foo", str>, and we modify the RDF datatype definitions to allow an L2V mapping from pairs to pairs. | 2b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. There is no L2V mapping, and this datatype is anomalous but specified by the RDF semantics directly, and is a datatype by fiat. | 2c. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is rdf:TaggedLiteral. The abstract syntax has no lexical form, the dataype is empty and the L2V is the empty mapping. Nevertheless, the value is linked to the present syntax by the RDF semantics directly and this is a datatype by fiat. | 3a. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These are conventional datatypes with a well defined L2V mapping. We invent an IRI naming convention for these datatypes, eg rdf:TaggedLiteral/tag. Then this is the type of the literal. | 3b. Lexical form is "foo", datatype is unique to the tag, ie there is one datatype per tag. These per-tag datatypes are all anonymous and have no IRI, but are sub-datatypes of rdf:TaggedLiteral, which is returned as the type for them all. | 4. Lexical form is "foo@tag", where tag is required to be nonempty and not contain '@'. This is a conventional datatype with a conventional L2V mapping. | 2d. The abstract syntax has a lexical form and language tag (like in RDF 2004). The value is assigned directly (like in RDF 2004), bypassing the datatype. The datatype has an empty lexical space and empty L2V mapping. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Antoine Zimmermann | No | Yes | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | No | Yes, and prefer | |
Ivan Herman | Yes, but prefer not | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | No | Yes, and prefer | Yes, but prefer not |
Richard Cyganiak | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, and prefer | No | No | No | No | Yes, and prefer |
Lee Feigenbaum | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes |
Jeremy Carroll | Yes, and prefer | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | No | No | Yes |
Peter Patel-Schneider | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | No | No | Yes, and prefer | Yes |
Pierre-Antoine Champin | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | No | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes | Yes |
Andy Seaborne | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes, and prefer |
Sandro Hawke | Yes, but prefer not | No | No | No | Yes, and prefer | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not |
Gavin Carothers | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | No | No | Yes, and prefer |
Ian Davis | Yes, and prefer | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
Steve Harris | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Eric Prud'hommeaux | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes | Yes, but prefer not | No | Yes, but prefer not |
Ivan Mikhailov | Yes, and prefer | No | No | No | No | No | No | No |
David Wood | No | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | Yes, but prefer not | No | Yes |
Guus Schreiber | Yes | No | No | No | Yes | Yes | No | Yes |
Everybody has responded to this questionnaire.
Compact view of the results / list of email addresses of the responders
WBS home / Questionnaires / WG questionnaires / Answer this questionnaire
w3c/wbs-design
or
by mail to sysreq
.