Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On Monday 18. January 2010 17:59:26 Pat Hayes wrote:
> But how else would you naturally express a property of anything in  
> RDF, than by writing a triple? It sounds like you want to not be using  
> RDF at all :-)

Oh, yes, I do! We already have precedent: datatypes and languages are 
"properties" of literals, and I think units should be done in much the same 
way, unless we find a way to do it in a more general way, that is also 
simple enough in practice.

Best,

Kjetil
-- 
Kjetil Kjernsmo
kjetil@kjernsmo.net
http://www.kjetil.kjernsmo.net/

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 21:32:13 UTC