- From: Nathan <nathan@webr3.org>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2012 11:08:23 +0100
- To: Sandro Hawke <sandro@w3.org>
- CC: public-rdf-wg@w3.org
Sandro Hawke wrote: > On 07/30/2012 06:37 PM, Andy Seaborne wrote: >>> >>> BUt surely IF this is a good idea and worth having, which Im assuming >>> it is, then the longer we wait, the more problems there will be with >>> deployed systems out there which don't support it. Kicking the can >>> down the road is not a good way to handle problems of legacy inertia. >>> >> >> Your argument would apply to literals-as-subjects as well; it's >> largely a syntax restriction. If that's going to happen, it isn't in >> this WG (by charter), so why not make the changes in one step, not in >> multiple steps? > > If literals-as-subject were primarily a matter of syntax, or were seen > as inevitable, I don't think they'd have been ruled out by the > charter. I understand the reasons were mostly about data structures > and implementation techniques, but I wasn't paying close attention to > the technical content, so perhaps I misunderstood. > > It might be interesting to ask again. Agree, another survey?
Received on Tuesday, 31 July 2012 10:09:25 UTC