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

Re: RDF concepts

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 10:57:55 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 12:42 25/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:

>[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
> > We were influenced largely by the desire not to rule Nokia's data
> > illegal.  Despite that, the majority were in favour of not having the lang
> > code on the literal, but Nokia's willingness to dissent carried the
> > day.  Since then we have learned that Nokia's data is illegal anyway
>No. It's not illegal anyway insofar as language tags are concerned. Only
>that we will need to use typed literals rather than inline literals.

When I wrote that, my understanding was that either the data has to change 
or you have to fix it up in the processing stream somewhere, right?  And if 
you have to do that, you could switch to a bnode idiom for representing the 
language at the same time.

> > and
> > Patrick has said:
> >
> >    [[So I guess the WG can omit lang tags from literals entirely.
> > It's looking like it won't matter to us one way or another.]]
> >
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0277.html
> >
> > Which I take to be a withdrawing of that dissent.
>The dissent is not withdrawn. I meant simply that it wouldn't matter
>one way or another if we stopped using RDF. We're not yet at that
>point. Not yet.

I had understood the reason for the dissent was so that Nokia did not have 
to change existing data.  I now no longer understand the justification, 
since, as I said above, my understanding is that the data has to be change 
or be 'fixed up' in the processing stream anyway because of other decisions 
we have made.

Please could you explain the dissent, noting that dissent is a weighty 
tool, not to be used lightly.

Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 05:55:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:01 UTC