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

RE: DECIDED: untidy semantics

From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 21:45:11 +0200
To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <OF5E7393A5.BA546391-ONC1256C3E.006BBAE0-C1256C3E.006C81CA@agfa.be>


>>My understanding of the tidy position is that this mapping is made by the
>>application at its own initiative, and it is unlicensed, or licensed only
by
>>private channel.
>
>The way I tend to think of the tidy position on this is that the mapping
is
>defined in the definition of the property.  Its not that its necessarily
>private or unlicensed but it is unavailable to a generic RDF processor.
As
>an example, the cc/pp bitsPerPixel property could be defined to be:
>
>   A string which is the decimal representation of the integer number of
>bits per pixel

how is that possible, I was exactly thinking the same
but that is indeed buitltin interpretation

-- ,
Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Tuesday, 24 September 2002 15:45:49 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:02 EDT