Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs] from Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider on 2011-03-07 (public-rdf-wg@w3.org from March 2011)

From: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2011 07:32:38 -0500
To: <nathan@webr3.org>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20110307.073238.33485637466179503.pfps@research.bell-labs.com>

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Subject: Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2011 17:45:33 -0600

> RDF Working Group Issue Tracker wrote:
>> RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]
> 
> yes, a main reason being, if we don't, somebody else will, and possibly 
> a few different people, which would lead to interop problems and require 
> standardization in the future. So may as well get there first.

In my opinion, this is one of the worst reasons to do something.  If
this is the only rationale, it would be better to wait and see what
mistakes everyone else makes and then do something without fatal flaws.

peter

PS:  Why the Reply-To: "nathan@webr3.org" <nathan@webr3.org>?

Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:33:43 UTC