- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>
- Date: Wed, 27 May 2009 09:04:23 -0500
- To: Peter F.Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
- Cc: <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>, <sandro@w3.org>, <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
On May 27, 2009, at 8:37 AM, Peter F.Patel-Schneider wrote: > 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. 1. Reinterpreting RDF plain literals is a change in RDF, like it or not 2. The point,therefore, is to not change RDF but rather to define a slightly modified RDF' and give it a name (in fact, call it "plain typed RDF") in order to distinguish it from RDF. Pat > >>> 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 > > > ------------------------------------------------------------ IHMC (850)434 8903 or (650)494 3973 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola (850)202 4440 fax FL 32502 (850)291 0667 mobile phayesAT-SIGNihmc.us http://www.ihmc.us/users/phayes
Received on Wednesday, 27 May 2009 14:05:37 UTC