- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2011 20:20:14 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Cc: Linked Data community <public-lod@w3.org>, Michael Hausenblas <michael.hausenblas@deri.org>
Alan, Always a pleasure to hear from you. On 11 Jun 2011, at 18:55, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > There already exists such a type that is a W3C recommendation. It is > called rdf:PlainLiteral - see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ > > I'm not sure why RDF 1.1 working group is not aware of that. Thank you for your contribution. The RDF WG is well aware of that. >> It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is the prevalent attitude outside of this mailing list and we should come to terms with this. > > I think we should foster a greater level of respect for representation > choices here. Your dismissal of the distinction between information > resources and what they are about insults the efforts of many > researchers and practitioners and their efforts in domains where such > a distinction in quite important. Let's try not to alienate part of > this community in order to interoperate with another. Look, Alan. I've wasted eight years arguing about that shit and defending httpRange-14, and I'm sick and tired of it. Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook, Freebase and the New York Times are violating httpRange-14. I consider that battle lost. I recanted. I've come to embrace agnosticism and I am not planning to waste any more time discussing these issues. Best, Richard
Received on Saturday, 11 June 2011 19:20:43 UTC