- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 08:32:27 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- CC: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote: > > > > >I disagree; I think it's important to be clear about what RDF 1.0 > >is and what it isn't, and the sooner the better. Perhaps it's > >time to design RDF 1.x or RDF 2.0 that doesn't have these limitations. > >But we can't do that (inside a W3C WG) until we're done with > >RDF 1.0. > > OK, fair enough. Ive been trying to serve two masters here, > obviously. Maybe if it is just a fact that DAML+OIL doesn't in fact > fit onto RDF, then we ought to make this vividly clear rather than > try to fix it. Perhaps I overstated the case... the evidence gathered by Art[1] that RDF 1.0 tools are all over the board on literals puts very little weight on any argument of the form "RDF 1.0 implementors have understood the spec to say XYZ...". Meanwhile, I've gotten a clarification of how DAML+OIL treats literals, and I've seen claims that it's been implemented. So I think we're not very much constrained by history. In some ways, I lean toward saying we should strike parseType="Literal" and xml:lang from the RDF 1.0 spec on the basis that there's insufficient implementation experience, just like aboutEachPrefix, and come back to richer literals and datatypes in RDF 1.x. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0095.html Mon, 8 Oct 2001 16:29:11 -0400 -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Wednesday, 10 October 2001 09:36:31 UTC