Re: Requirements for a possible "RDF 2.0"

On 01/18/2010 11:01 PM, Dan Brickley wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Kjetil Kjernsmo <> wrote:
>> 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.
> How far can we go by overloading the existing datatyping mechanism?
> ie. decorate literals with URIs that stand for particular encodings of
> particular units?

Hehe, indeed, datatypes can go far... too far...

"Jiri Prochazka"^^foaf:PersonType

> Dan

Received on Monday, 18 January 2010 22:59:21 UTC