W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-rdf-interest@w3.org > November 2000

Re: A triple is not unique.

From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 11:40:54 -0500 (EST)
To: Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
cc: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0011201131520.19492-100000@tux.w3.org>

On 20 Nov 2000, Jonas Liljegren wrote:
> I would like Dan Brickley to make an official ruling, and update [1],
> and later clarify the issue in a revision of the M&S document.

Sorry guys, I'm not in the business of making "official rulings"; that's
why we have working groups, document editors and Directo's decisions etc!

I am however in the business of trying to make sure all that stuff (eg.
possible rechartering of model/syntax work) reflects the concerns and
experience of RDF implementors. Specifically, I'd like to better
understand how the design issues here relate to existing RDF
implementations and vocabularies. If/when we jump one way or the other on
this issue, current code and systems may break if they've made a different
interpretation of the spec. Right now I'm not sure if most implementors
have for eg tried to remain neutral, with code that could operate in
either style. I suspect most folk would value resolution of this issue
pretty highly, and would live with the consequences. What I don't know yet
is how big a disruption this issue's resolution might be.

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 11:41:38 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:07:33 UTC