- From: Jeremy Carroll <jeremy@topquadrant.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2011 18:52:20 -0800
- To: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 11/22/2011 2:14 PM, David Wood wrote: > I'm clearly in the minority. On 11/21/2011 11:32 AM, Richard Cyganiak wrote: > (FWIW, the RDF 2004 design is: Q1: Yes. Q2: Yes. Q3: Yes. Q4: No. Q5: Yes. Q6: Yes.) Which David agreed with, and actually so do I ... all designs have problems. Better stick with the devil we know. Although Q0 (optionality) I buy that XML Literals should not be a required datatype. I haven't sounded out TQ people ... the general TQ approach to XML is to model it in RDF .... maybe I should have a discussion - we actually do a lot of XML work, without using XML Literals. Jeremy
Received on Wednesday, 23 November 2011 02:52:44 UTC