> On Wed, 2010-01-20 at 10:14 +0000, Graham Klyne wrote: > > One of the things I failed to realize in time to > > put my weight behind it was that an approach to datatyping based on > > interpretation properties, which was proposed by Dan Connolly, could be as > > convenient to use, if not more so, than the current datatyping scheme, and > would > > keep the core of RDF very much simpler. > > I agree. The interpretation properties[1] approach is very general, > clean and logical. If it feels inconvenient, that seems to me like an > argument for syntactic sugar rather than a different approach. > > 1. http://www.w3.org/DesignIssues/InterpretationProperties.html I think the interesting and practical work here would be to specify and demonstrate how to use Interpretation Properties in a way that is 100% compatible with RDF as specified. I think that's the only way to move forward with this kind of work. -- SandroReceived on Wednesday, 20 January 2010 14:20:36 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:48:05 UTC