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

Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:25:43 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.2.20011001161411.0444dd70@joy.songbird.com>
To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 01:26 PM 10/1/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote:


>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 agree with the last, and don't believe either approach was "reinventing" 
RDF, just taking a different view on clarification of M&S.

Specifically, the ideas I suggested do not in any way change the RDF/XML 
syntax, and I think they are consistent with the RDF M&S triple-based 
"model" (arguable, more so than M&S itself).  I raised my points, in part, 
because M&S seems to be contradictory on what a literal is, so something 
has to give.

I can see my proposal is probably inconsistent with existing code, so may 
not be a good direction.  I don't think that's so true of Jan's approach.

#g



------------------------------------------------------------
Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
<Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 12:02:34 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:55 EDT