- From: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- Date: Wed, 03 Jun 2009 17:11:53 +0100
- To: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- CC: "Seaborne, Andy" <andy.seaborne@hp.com>, "Peter F.Patel-Schneider" <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>, "sandro@w3.org" <sandro@w3.org>, "public-rdf-text@w3.org" <public-rdf-text@w3.org>
Alan Ruttenberg wrote:
>> My problem is that Option 1 [1] seems to signal that the sheer existence of
>> such data invalidates the spec. That is actually why I think Option 2 is
>> sufficient/better, as it confines that effects just to anybody
>> who does care about rdf:PlainLiteral (and thus OWL2 and RIF who are
>> referring to it.
>
> I do understand your issue with the wording. Would it help to change
> the "do" to "will" or "would" to further clarify that this sentence is
> a consequence of the previous?
I would say it would help to change the wording, yes.
Not convinced that "will"/"would" fix it. However, as stated several
times, I am fine with the rewording proposed earlier as Option 2:
Therefore, typed literals with rdf:PlainLiteral as the
datatype are considered by this specification to be not valid in
syntaxes for RDF graphs or SPARQL.
Is there a problem with/objections against this?
Axel
> -Alan
--
Dr. Axel Polleres
Digital Enterprise Research Institute, National University of Ireland,
Galway
email: axel.polleres@deri.org url: http://www.polleres.net/
Received on Wednesday, 3 June 2009 16:12:33 UTC