W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-rdf-wg@w3.org > March 2011

Re: RDF-ISSUE-5 (Graph Literals): Should we define Graph Literal datatypes? [RDF Graphs]

From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
Date: Mon, 07 Mar 2011 12:41:31 +0000
Message-ID: <4D74D27B.4030103@webr3.org>
To: Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider <pfps@research.bell-labs.com>
CC: RDF Working Group WG <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
Peter Frederick Patel-Schneider wrote:
> 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.

Yup, this has been discussed in full, Richard Cyganiak said pretty much 
exactly the same as you, and I agreed in principle, but wanted to note 
that this could be seen as somewhat of a special case (Sandro also gave 
some reasons as to why this may be the case).

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

Unsure, mail client setting somewhere!
Received on Monday, 7 March 2011 12:42:16 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 17:04:03 UTC