- From: Max Froumentin <mf@w3.org>
- Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:09:38 +0100
- To: Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>, swbp <public-swbp-wg@w3.org>
Jacco van Ossenbruggen <Jacco.van.Ossenbruggen@cwi.nl> writes: > So I still think it would help if the EMMA spec would explain why RDF > was not used, and how EMMA data could be transformed into RDF when needed. That's good feedback for www-multimodal@w3.org > PS: I liked Max' arguments explaining why RDF was not used. They partly > address missing features in RDF (the ability to express and reason with > uncertainty). > I also liked his example in > http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/WD-emma-20031218/#s2.1.3.2. > Note the use of xpointer. This seems to be a good use case to allow > literals as subjects, in which case you would not have needed the xpointer. > Comments? We considered that in our discussions, until we hit the question about how to represent an XML Literal as the subject of two triples. As far as I can tell, you have to copy the literal. And similarly if you want to assign a property to one node of your XML and another one to a subnode of it. Max.
Received on Monday, 3 October 2005 15:08:53 UTC