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 12:05:47 +0100
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021025115512.02e813e0@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

At 13:04 25/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:

[...]

>And as I pointed out, if we have to start using our own idioms that
>are not supported elsewhere for something that has been a feature
>of M&S then RDF loses a great deal of benefit with regards to
>portability of our content between arbitrary systems and tools.

Ah, its becoming clearer.  Nodia is not dissenting on the ground their 
code/data would have to change. Nokia is dissenting if the WG fail to 
standardize a mechanism for expressing ... I'm struggling to find words to 
describe what you are trying to express.

Maybe Nokia could submit a note on the b-node idiom for representing 
whatever this is.  There is a good chance it would gain wide 
acceptance.  There are many things we are not standardizing.  I'm not sure 
what's special about this one.

And as for it being in M&S, this seems to be bound up with datatypes.  M&S 
didn't say anything about datatypes, and I don't see how we are taking 
anything away from M&S (noting that rdfs:range was in schema) that affects 
this issue.

Brian
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 07:03:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:52:30 EDT