- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 17 Oct 2001 09:57:20 +0100
- To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Art: > > Ron - thanks for providing these notes. > > I like the general approach that is outlined and would favor > representing a Literal as a bNode. Jan: > I hate to say it, but I'd take the opposite view: this seems clunky and > ugly. Isn't the thing about RDF 2.0 that it is for later. I see our job as: - clarifying what is already out there - not closing doors for RDF 2.0 So we have two different opinions about what RDF 2.0 might be like, this helps in that we use this to inform us as what NOT to do, rather than what to do. We shouldn't solve any problems in ways that prevents RDF 2.0 from either: + imposing another level of indirection as the general literal representaion or + moving to rich typed literals as the general literal representation My view is that M&S is clear that Literals are just strings (with that lang thing!) and that we can get a long way, (far enough), with sticking to that. I also think that RDF 2.0 does need to say something more. Our charter says ... > RDF Schema must be expressed in terms of the RDF model, and > must use W3C RDF syntax. RDF Schema must use and build upon > XML Schema datatypes to the fullest extent that is practical > and appropriate. Specifically, the RDF Core Working Group is > not chartered to develop a separate data typing language that > duplicates facilities provided by XML Schema data types. A major reworking of types into the Graph and Syntax is in my view out of charter. I think we either can rubber stamp DAML use of XML schema datatypes or finish off RDF 1.0 as untyped and ask for a new charter to do types in RDF 2.0.
Received on Wednesday, 17 October 2001 04:52:43 UTC