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

Re: Typed literals: current status

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:36:37 +0300
Message-ID: <010501c279ae$8493bbe0$c99316ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>



[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com]

> That seems to suggest that you will have to change this data anyway to be 
> conformant.  Would it be feasible to change it use a b-node while you are 
> at it?
> 
>    some:Resource mars:shortLabel _:v .
>    _:v  rdf:value mars:Token"Foo" .
>    _:v  mars:lang "en" .
> 
> or some such construct?

The problem is that any solution *we* choose to use is not
globally portable to any arbitrary RDF system as it is not
specified by the standard.

Heck, we can do whatever we want to do, but it's another thing
entirely whether anyone else will support it.

And if we have to roll our own for most of the key functionality
of our models, then there remains little benefit being offered
by RDF that XML won't provide. 

As I see it, the benefit-for-effort ratio just keeps getting worse...

It remains to be seen whether OWL will balance out these omissions.

Of course, that's just my own current feeling. Others in Nokia
may feel different.

Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 05:36:42 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:28 EDT