- From: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:37:32 -0400
- To: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com> Subject: Re: rdf-text telecon agenda Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 08:31:19 -0500 > Hi Peter, > > A little elaboration on a couple of points would be helpful > >>>> >>>> * Pat's approach using RDF' > >> Not completely the right way to go, in my view. > > Can you say what the issue you see is? Pat's proposal appears to be making a change to RDF itself, which I do not support. >> My last preference would be to make statements where complete compliance >> would require all RDF applications to change. This is what the current >> document says. > > What in the current document makes this the case? Any language that says a particular previously-legal construct MUST NOT appear in RDF graphs is making a demand of *all* RDF applications. The precise wording is typed rdf:text literals MUST NOT occur explicitly in published RDF content ... > Thanks, > Alan peter
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 13:38:36 UTC