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

Re: The case for untidy literal semantics

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:30:44 -0400
Message-ID: <3D936064.7010108@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>

Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> At 11:39 25/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:
> 
> 
>> [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, 
>> patrick.stickler@nokia.com]
>>
>>
>> > Some RDF assumes string based semantics for literals.  [There ought 
>> to be a
>> > reference here, perhaps something from RSS ...
>>
>> RSS presumes value-based semantics.
>>
>> C.f. http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/, e.g.
> 
> 
> Interesting.  Do you think RSS uses value based semantics throughout?  
> Hmm, what test do we apply to tell the difference?

As a member of the RSS-DEV working group, and a co-author of the RSS 1.0 
  spec, I feel pretty confident in saying that the RSS spec doesn't have 
a well worked out position on way or the other. You can use RSS and 
extend it with other RDF namespaces in any way you like. The RSS 1.0 
built-in properties are, in my experience, perfectly deployable from a 
tidy perspective. I don't think there's much mileage to be gotten from 
trying to co-opt RSS as strong evidence one way or another in this 
debate. But if you want an RSS perspective on our current troubles: the 
main thing that RSS needs from RDF Core is some cleaned up specs, as 
swiftly as possible, rather than spending a couple more months polishing 
our understanding of subtle and obscure issues to do with literals. 
RSS-DEV is a very practical-minded group and I fear would view our 
current debate as needles-on-pinheads...

Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 15:26:07 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:51:03 EDT