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

RE: I18N Issue alternative: a passing thought.

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:06:10 -0500
To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <1063893969.5532.583.camel@dirk.dm93.org>

On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 08:17, Jeremy Carroll wrote:
[...]
> The additional blank node was at the heart of the untidy proposals (either
> explicitly or implicitly) and this proposal is essentially untidiness
> revisited.

Is it really? After a quick read, I also came to the
conclusion that consideration of this proposal involves
reopening the datatypes issue...
  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes

but just to confirm, Pat, in your proposal, does this
entailment hold or not?

   <a> <b> "10" .
   <c> <d> "10" .

entails

   <a> <b> _:l .
   <c> <d> _:l .


-- draft question: option C 10 Oct 2002
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html
<- 11 Oct 2002 minutes
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html
<- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes

-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:06:51 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:07:13 EDT