Paul Gearon wrote: > On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Birte Glimm > <birte.glimm@comlab.ox.ac.uk> wrote: >> [snip] >> >>> We could change the definition to allow literals as subjects - in order to maintain compatibility absolutely with the Query 1.0 spec, the restriction could be moved into the definition of simple entailment matching, freeing it up for other entailment regimes. >>> >>> Query 1.0 notes that the RDF WG knew of no reason not permit them except the syntax issues with RDF/XML. > > I can't recall where I saw this, but didn't the RDF folks consider > adding them in if a new version of RDF ever happens? This is certainly one of the issues that a new RDF group would have to look at. _However_, and obviously putting the SemWeb Activity Head's hat on, it is not clear at all in my mind that re-opening an RDF group would be a good thing. RDF is at the centre of Semantic Web technologies, and reopening the group _may_ send out a message of instability that the market does not need. After all, it is only recently that we see this market to become more stabilized and prospering. (And, yes, I am torn on this issue and I know there will be disagreement on this...) We certainly should not expect any change on this subject during the lifetime of this group. Ivan -- Ivan Herman, W3C Semantic Web Activity Lead Home: http://www.w3.org/People/Ivan/ mobile: +31-641044153 PGP Key: http://www.ivan-herman.net/pgpkey.html FOAF: http://www.ivan-herman.net/foaf.rdf
Received on Tuesday, 29 September 2009 07:47:45 UTC