W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > April 2003

Re: pfps-16, proposed resolution (revised)

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 09:08:06 +0300
To: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <200304110908.06705.jjc@hpl.hp.com>

>>The LC text does not claim that the RDF representation is equivalent, merely
>>that it is an expression of, an n-place predicate or a n-column table.
>>The primer does not deal with this problem, which is why I thought we had 
>>this text in the first place.

>I'm not sure, now, what "this problem" is, that is not covered by the 
>proposed revised text.

As I saw it the LC text was intended to indicate one way to migrate legacy 
relational data into RDF. I had considered proposing to cut this text 
completely when I reworked the example a couple of releases ago. I decided 
against on the basis that relational data is the most important type of 
legacy data, yet the topic is slightly beyond the primer treatment. Nothing 
Peter says seems relevant to that judgement.

While I am not particularly attached to this baby see your proposed changes as  
throwing it out with the bathwater.

Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 03:07:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:54:05 UTC