- From: Jos de Bruijn <debruijn@inf.unibz.it>
- Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2008 19:20:03 +0100
- To: axel@polleres.net
- CC: "Public-Rif-Wg (E-mail)" <public-rif-wg@w3.org>
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 18:20:31 UTC
Axel,
I forgot to address your comment:
> 11)
> As for the definition of extended RDF graphs.
> There are (for many implementers) good reasons, to keep literals and blank nodes
> away from the predicate position.
>
> I am unsure about whether this liberal definition we use here is a good idea, actually I would like to object against literals in pred positions.
I do not really understand what your problem is with allowing literals
in predicate positions in our extended notion of RDF graphs; what are
these good reasons to keep literals and blank nodes away from predicate
positions?
The reason we consider extended RDF graphs is to accommodate possible
extensions of RDF that are less restrictive in their syntax.
Best, Jos
--
debruijn@inf.unibz.it
Jos de Bruijn, http://www.debruijn.net/
----------------------------------------------
One man that has a mind and knows it can
always beat ten men who haven't and don't.
-- George Bernard Shaw
Received on Monday, 10 March 2008 18:20:31 UTC