- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2002 18:07:08 -0600
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-15 21:21, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > >> At 19:23 15/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >> [...] >> >>> I've used rdf:lform >> >> There could be some debate about our ability to add things to the RDF >> namespace without changing its URI. How about rdfs:lform? > >Fine with me. I guess we anyway agreed that we're pushing the >datatype stuff into RDFS, so that would mean we should use >rdfs:dtype rather than rdf:dtype as well. OK, I guess. But then why not use the rdfd: namespace idea? That would make things easier for people, seems to me, since they could very quickly see whether or not datatype magic was being utilized, and we could isolate the 'special' aspects of the MT to a distinct namespace, which I like on aesthetic grounds. In any case, can we please get this sorted out, as it is a pain in the anatomy to have to re-draw the diagrams just to change the vocabulary. Thanks. Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Monday, 18 February 2002 19:06:58 UTC