W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2001

RE: Proposal to drop S from consideration

From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:26:43 +0200
Message-ID: <2BF0AD29BC31FE46B78877321144043114C0CE@trebe003.NOE.Nokia.com>
To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org

> Principally, I understand his message as a vote in the 
> "cannot live with"
> category against S; 

Yes. Thank you, Jeremy. This is my position.

I'm sorry that I missed the vote. I had misunderstood that
it would be held by email rather than during the concall.
My error.

I believe (and hope) that my posting

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0579.html

clearly explains my position on the various proposals, which
in a nutshell is that all three of the following idioms 
(the first two being in common use):


SUBJ PRED _:OBJ .             (modified DC, DAML)
_:OBJ rdf:value "LIT" .
_:OBJ rdf:type TYPE .

and

SUBJ PRED "LIT" .             (P)
PRED rdfs:range TYPE .

and 

SUBJ PRED TYPE:LIT .          (U)


all define the same pairing


("LIT",TYPE)


and are all semantically equivalent and equally acceptable
means of denoting the value in a given value space to
which the lexical form maps to.

Cheers,

Patrick
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 14:26:33 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:42:46 EDT