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

RE: A triple is not unique.

From: McBride, Brian <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:14:33 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F2394DB@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>
Cc: Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
> 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.

I can see that the disruption caused to current implementations
would be a factor if m&s was ambiguous.  But if the answer lies
in m&s, I humbly suggest the spec takes precedence.  That's what
specs are for.

Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:14:44 UTC

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