- From: Alan Ruttenberg <alanruttenberg@gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 3 Jun 2009 12:13:22 -0400
- To: Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org>
- 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>
On Wed, Jun 3, 2009 at 12:11 PM, Axel Polleres <axel.polleres@deri.org> wrote: > 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? Not my favourite (what does "valid" mean), but as you saw in my vote, i do not object. -Alan > > 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 16:14:37 UTC