W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rif-wg@w3.org > March 2008

Re: ACTION-420 Review of SW-compatibility

From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:20:03 +0100
Message-ID: <47D57BD3.6080604@inf.unibz.it>
To: axel@polleres.net
CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Axel,

I forgot to address your comment:

> 11)
> As for the definition of extended RDF graphs.
> There are (for many implementers) good reasons, to keep literals and blank nodes
> away from the predicate position.
> 
> I am unsure about whether this liberal definition we use here is a good idea, actually I would like to object against literals in pred positions.

I do not really understand what your problem is with allowing literals 
in predicate positions in our extended notion of RDF graphs; what are 
these good reasons to keep literals and blank nodes away from predicate 
positions?

The reason we consider extended RDF graphs is to accommodate possible 
extensions of RDF that are less restrictive in their syntax.


Best, Jos




-- 
                          debruijn@inf.unibz.it

Jos de Bruijn,        http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
   -- George Bernard Shaw


Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 18:20:31 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 2 June 2009 18:33:47 GMT