W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > semantic-web@w3.org > June 2010

Re: Subjects as Literals, [was Re: The Ordered List Ontology]

From: Peter Ansell <ansell.peter@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 1 Jul 2010 08:50:13 +1000
Message-ID: <AANLkTil4djmNgBo9rMwArq7p_3ATJbKdJ5Kgrfx7yFez@mail.gmail.com>
To: Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>
Cc: Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
On 1 July 2010 07:25, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk> wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Jun 2010 13:18:25 -0700
> Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com> wrote:
>
>> Here are the reasons I voted this way:
>>
>> - it will mess up RDF/XML
>
> No it won't - it will just mean that RDF/XML is only capable of
> representing a subset of RDF graphs. And guess what? That's already
> the case.

Could you point me to an example of a valid RDF graph that RDF/XML
cannot represent? I have heard people say this before but I don't
remember ever seeing an example.

Thanks,

Peter
Received on Wednesday, 30 June 2010 22:50:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 21:45:36 GMT