W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > November 2011

Re: XML literals poll

From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:52:20 -0800
Message-ID: <4ECC5FE4.7010704@topquadrant.com>
To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 11/22/2011 2:14 PM, David Wood wrote:
> I'm clearly in the minority.

On 11/21/2011 11:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote:
> (FWIW, the RDF 2004 design is: Q1: Yes. Q2: Yes. Q3: Yes. Q4: No. Q5: Yes. Q6: Yes.)

Which David agreed with, and actually so do I ... all designs have 
problems. Better stick with the devil we know.

Although Q0 (optionality) I buy that XML Literals should not be a 
required datatype.

I haven't sounded out TQ people ... the general TQ approach to XML is to 
model it in RDF .... maybe I should have a discussion - we actually do a 
lot of XML work, without using XML Literals.

Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 02:52:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 16:25:46 GMT