- From: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2011 14:05:31 -0500
- To: Charles Greer <cgreer@marklogic.com>
- Cc: William Waites <wwaites@tardis.ed.ac.uk>, "phayes@ihmc.us" <phayes@ihmc.us>, "public-rdf-wg@w3.org" <public-rdf-wg@w3.org>
On Tue, 2011-11-08 at 10:09 -0800, Charles Greer wrote:
>
> I'm not frankly sure if this is the place for this kind of input,
> being
> new to the process, but I'd support a view of place #4 as
> 'implementation dependent' so as to enable a wide variety of data
> store
> types.
This is a fine place for this input. I don't know if anyone's been
calling it "implementation dependent", but I think that's a perfectly
reasonable name for the status quo.
In contrast, I've been arguing for at least *allowing* people to use
standards for what the fourth column means, to allow useful
communication between systems. For example, if we want to publish
licensing information about a database (set of triples), we need to be
able to name it in some unambiguous way.
-- Sandro
Received on Tuesday, 8 November 2011 19:05:38 UTC