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

Re: Minutes: 2002-09-20

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 11:18:22 +0300
Message-ID: <006501c26535$4738ebe0$d74416ac@NOE.Nokia.com>
To: "ext Jos De_Roo" <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
Cc: "ext Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org>



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

> >            It's unclear to me that Jos is in fact opposed to
> >            the decision rather than concerned about the
> >            abstract syntax and N-Triples representation.
> >
> >            Jos?
> 
> I would have said tidy, no doubt about that

Jos, not to give you a hard time or anything, but I'm confused.

In http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0235.html

you respond to Brian in a way that I understood as being OK
with Friday's decision, so long as the untidyness was reflected
in the node labels:

---
>You are objecting to
>
>   <a> <b> "foo" .
>
>being untidy but that
>
>   <a> <b> _:dt"foo" .
>
>is ok.

right, the latter is untidy
thanks for the clarification Brian

>Then, the question as put, if it translated to:
>
>   <something> <age> _:dt"10" .
>
>would you be ok with that?

of course I would
---

So while I understand that you still have a desire for some
form of "global string constant literal", other than a URIref,
you do not appear opposed to the idea of a distinctly labeled,
implicitly typed, untidy literal nodes which denote values
and not strings.

Eh?

Patrick
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 04:25:14 EDT

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