- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2001 13:26:43 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I am less than comfortable with the direction of Graham's http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0002.html Jan's http://ioctl.org/rdf/literals which both seem to make much more of a Literal than M&S. Our job is constrained by the charter. I see our job as making the best sense we can out of M&S and schema, and not reinventing RDF from the ground up. I include in our job that of finishing various half finished items in M&S and RDF schema, but not going completely against the spirit of the two documents. Given that these documents are problematic "making the best sense we can" leaves us a lot of room. I also note that data typing, and specifically the relationship between RDF and XML schema datatypes, probably should be addressed in part in this round. I hope we can do that in a way that: + is sufficient for what the community needs now, + does not break too many older tools that have made a bona fide attempt to implement M&S and schema + leaves the future sufficiently open for an RDF 2 WG. We do not have a blank piece of paper. Jeremy
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 08:27:12 UTC