Re: proposed response to OWL LC documents

On 29/1/09 22:21, Guus Schreiber wrote:
> As an afterthought:
>
> Perhaps we should include a fourth point about the fact that RDF/XML is
> not any more the only normative exchange syntax. This may very well
> hamper interoperability between the SKOS/RDF and OWL2 world.

On this point, I tried briefly to understand how the rdf:text proposal 
would look in RDFa ... ... I don't think it'd be pretty (unless @content 
is used extensively). Literals would contain extra materials not 
intended for human consumption.

Not 100% sure on that, but if I understand rdf:text right, ...

Dan

Received on Thursday, 29 January 2009 21:26:11 UTC