- From: Steve Harris <steve.harris@garlik.com>
- Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2011 23:03:22 +0000
- To: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Cc: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On 2011-03-05, at 14:49, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > On 4 Mar 2011, at 21:59, RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote: >> RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] > > Anyone could trivially define such datatypes. And once that is done, tool vendors could easily add support for them. > > Given the relative ease of doing this, if there was actual user demand for such datatypes, then surely someone would have already defined them, and they would have seen some adoption. > > It is my strong belief that standardization efforts should focus on codifying existing practice and not invent new speculative things. Absolutely. rdf:XMLLiteral is kind of in this space, and no one really uses that, let alone an RDF version. - Steve -- Steve Harris, CTO, Garlik Limited 1-3 Halford Road, Richmond, TW10 6AW, UK +44 20 8439 8203 http://www.garlik.com/ Registered in England and Wales 535 7233 VAT # 849 0517 11 Registered office: Thames House, Portsmouth Road, Esher, Surrey, KT10 9AD
Received on Saturday, 5 March 2011 23:03:56 UTC