- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Mon, 16 Jul 2001 20:16:19 -0500
- To: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@Baltimore.com>
- Cc: "Stephen Petschulat/CanWest/IBM" <spetschu@ca.ibm.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 02:48 PM, Graham Klyne wrote: > E.g. when exchanging RDF between systems (the reason for > standardization), do we really want to specify that the > existence of a node, without properties, is significant? If > so, we must define the significance, and that looks awkward to > me. Can you explain why this seems awkward to you? It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to do to me. The alternative seems to declare that: <rdf:Description rdf:about="foo" /> means: <foo> rdf:type rdfs:Resource . which seems even more awkward. -- "Aaron Swartz" | ...schoolyard subversion... <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> | <http://aaronsw.com/school/> <http://www.aaronsw.com/> | because school makes kids dumb
Received on Monday, 16 July 2001 21:16:30 UTC