- From: <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Sun, 4 Nov 2001 12:50:57 +0100
- To: bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com
- Cc: sergey@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
>>>Are you suggesting that >>> >>> <rdf:Description> >>> <eg:prop>foo</eg:prop> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >>>is really shorthand for >>> >>> <rdf:Description> >>> <eg:prop rdfs:str="foo"/> >>> </rdf:Description> >>> >> >> yes > > >Now I understand, I think. Of course this is not what M&S says, right? right >So you are proposing that we redefine what triples are generated for: > > <rdf:Description> > <eg:prop>foo</eg:prop> > </rdf:Description> > >i.e. they should be: > > _:anon <eg:prop> _:lit . > _:lit <rdfs:str> "foo" . > >I guess that's a test case. Have I got that right? right >If you are serious about >this, can I suggest you post the suggestion, along with an explanation of the >advantages and disadvantages to the WG. But please note that its a change to >M&S and will break every implementation out there, so it'll need a strong case. Well, as I said yesterday, "I came to realize that..." so that's pretty recent... and you are right to ask for a strong case however I will need some time for that (and a fresh mind, because now I'm feeling weak, even a bit sick I think) and I also have to leave in a couple of hours to Nice for the AC meeting, but I will think and work further as much as possible and come back to you and the WG The main point is that the object in :s eg:shoeSize "10". is *not* a string object but some-thing that can be further characterized as having a rdfs:str property with string value "10" -- Jos
Received on Sunday, 4 November 2001 06:52:45 UTC