W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Should rdf:nil be rdf:Nil...

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Sun, 10 Nov 2002 23:28:09 +0100
To: "Dave Beckett <dave.beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
Cc: Graham Klyne <GK@NineByNine.org>, RDF core WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF60BB1CB6.3E7E3D29-ONC1256C6D.007AFCD2-C1256C6D.007B789B@agfa.be>


> > ... in keeping with the conventions for object and property names?
>
> It isn't a class; or at least it wasn't till this week; it now might
> be rdf:type rdf:List.  Can we batch up all these proposed renamings
> and terms moving namespaces?
>
> I've seen:
>   rdfs:XMLLiteral (rdf:type rdfs:Class) to rdf:XMLLiteral
>   rdfs:Datatype (rdf:type rdfs:Class) to rdf:Datatype
>   rdf:nil (rdf:type rdf:List) to rdf:Nil
>
> I want to see compelling reasons to do any or all of these proposed
> changes.  So far, I'm not convinced.

I thouhgt DanC gave a good reason to use
rdf:XMLLiteral so I switched to that one
(sorry Pat, forgot to mention that in my
recent e-mail message Re: rdfs closures)

I don't see reasons to change
rdfs:Datatype and rdf:nil

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Sunday, 10 November 2002 17:28:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:54:03 EDT