- From: Richard Cyganiak <richard@cyganiak.de>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 15:06:22 +0100
- To: Andy Seaborne <andy.seaborne@epimorphics.com>
- Cc: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
On 17 Oct 2011, at 11:47, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> I think the only complete solution will involve putting structural >>> literals into RDF itself, so they are not triple-encoded and can't be >>> 'bad'. When treated as first-class literals with equality rules, >>> accessors, and combining rules, then implementations can store them >>> specially, provide good APIs, and application programmer won't have to >>> learn about the encoding rules. >> >> That sounds pretty hard. Do you have some design in mind...? > > RDF 2. Not this WG. > > Add "list" to IRI,BNode and literal > Or subtype of literal but as it has it's own syntax etc it feels different. > > IF this is to advance, I think it needs serious scoping and investigation with all the stakeholders involved. RDF-WG isn't that place either by our current timeline, nor by the constituency of people involved. > > An XG perhaps? > > You could add into the change mix adding graph literals to RDF 2+ +1 to setting up an XG to look into list literals, graph literals and similar. RDF-WG should standardize what's already used and shown to work. A focused XG is a good place for doing some research and developing proposals for RDF2. Best, Richard
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 14:07:15 UTC