- From: Narahari, Sateesh <Sateesh_Narahari@jdedwards.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 10:03:35 -0600
- To: "'Peter F. Patel-Schneider'" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, www-rdf-interest@w3.org
But RDF is not XML and XML is not RDF. Why enforce anything related to XML, into RDF model?. Current RDF M & S has a problem, in that there is mixing of XMLized RDF in the RDF M & S document. RDF M & S shall only talk about the model and leave serialization, interchange formats to either appendix or a seperate document. Perhaps, an attempt at refactoring RDF M & S to using N3 completely would highlight any such mixing of XML & RDF. Sateesh -----Original Message----- From: Peter F. Patel-Schneider [mailto:pfps@research.bell-labs.com] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2001 9:21 AM To: www-rdf-interest@w3.org Subject: RDF Core WG work on literals I just finished going through some of the messages on the w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org Mail archives concerning literals. I am very concerned that the RDF Core WG is going down a completely wrong path with this work on literals. As an alternative proposal why not simply say that RDF literals are XML strings, and use the semantics for the XML Schema string datatype? Peter F. Patel-Schneider
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 12:00:27 UTC