- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 31 May 2011 09:23:04 -0700
- To: David Wood <david@3roundstones.com>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 5/31/2011 8:54 AM, David Wood wrote: > On May 31, 2011, at 10:56, Jeremy Carroll wrote: > >> On 5/31/2011 7:17 AM, Sandro Hawke wrote: >>> In other words, we could say "foo"@bar is syntactic sugar for something >>> like [ a rdf:LinguisticExpression; rdf:language "bar"; rdf:value "foo"]. >>> I know that doesn't address everything, but it has pretty much the same >>> problems everything else does being modeled in RDF. :-) >> That was a design considered and rejected by the previous group. Personally I prefer it; but I don't think we should reopen that can of worms. > > At the risk of being difficult, why not? We have a standard - we have interoperability - it might not be perfect - it never is (at least in somebody's book); for me the lang tag stuff is not perfect - but the amount of benefit from a major reworking is not worth the interoperability cost Jeremy
Received on Tuesday, 31 May 2011 16:23:29 UTC