- From: Yves Raimond <yves.raimond@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 6 Jul 2010 22:07:57 +0100
- To: nathan@webr3.org
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, Toby Inkster <tai@g5n.co.uk>, Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Semantic Web <semantic-web@w3.org>
Hello! On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 10:02 PM, Nathan <nathan@webr3.org> wrote: > Pat Hayes wrote: >> >> However, before I lose any more of my SW friends, let me say at once that >> I am NOT arguing for this change to RDF. > > so after hundreds of emails, I have to ask - what (the hell) defines RDF? > > I've read that 'The RDF Semantics as stated works fine with triples which > have any kind of syntactic node in any position in any combination.' > > Do the 'RDF Semantics' define RDF? or do the serializations? > > simply - does RDF support literal subjects or not - I've read the > aforementioned sentence to read 'RDF Semantics support literal subjects' or > should I be reading 'RDF Semantics could support literal subjects' or 'does > support literal subjects' or? > > Just seeking a definitive bit of clarity on 1: what defines RDF, 2: what is > *currently* supported in that definition. According to this recommendation, it doesn't support any kind of node in any position: http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-concepts/#section-Literals So no, it's not something serialisation-specific. Best, y > > Preferably a serialization unspecific answer :) > > Best & TIA, > > Nathan > >
Received on Tuesday, 6 July 2010 21:08:31 UTC