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

Re: Some excerpts from AdobeXMP SDK Documentation

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:36:18 +0300
To: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Message-ID: <CN53qRc3CLsl.K3lSVXwd@mail.nokia.com>

OK. The short answer is yes, but it is you, and not Jena
that is presuming string based semantics.

It was an ambiguous question and I have been attempting
to clarify the question in my response.

Your example  does not represent a predisposition of the Jena API
towards  string based interpretation of
inline literals but only illustrates that one *could* implement
an application using the Jena API which exibits such a
predisposition. One could also do the opposite in Jena.
Jena itself doesn't promote either view.

I can't say it any clearer than that.


_____________Original message ____________
Subject:	Re: Some excerpts from AdobeXMP SDK Documentation
Sender:	ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date:		Thu, 26 Sep 2002 18:27:33 +0300

At 16:22 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote:

> >
> > I suggested in:
> >
> >    http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Sep/0284.html
> >
> >   [[model.contains(c, d, a.getProperty(b).getObject())]]
> >
> > was an accurate representation of the entailment.  Would you accept that?
>I would accept it as *one* possible string-based interpretation
>of inline literals expressed using the Jena API, but not any
>fixed string-based interpretation mandated nor even suggested by
>the Jena API.

The question was:

   Is the above expression an accurate representation of the entailment in 
the jena API?

I think that is a question which deserved a yes/no answer.  If you answer 
yes, then we can look for an equivalent in XMP.  I am not sure what your 
answer means.

Also you haven't responded to my difficulty in understanding what 
consistent test you are applying to reach your conclusions.

I doesn't seem like this discussion is making progress.  Time to end it 

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 11:39:17 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:00 UTC