- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:39:02 +0100
- To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Aaron Swartz wrote: > > On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 04:28 PM, Brian McBride wrote: > > > Properties with a language attribute are represented by a different > > triple structure from those without (though those without could > > be represented in a similar structure with the xml:lang property > > omitted). > > I think this is really another option -- I'll call it 2b: > > <rdf:Description> > <foo:bar>foobar</foo:bar> > </rdf:Description> > > _:a foo:bar _:b . > _:b rdf:value "foobar" . Yup. > > Can we have a straw poll on what people want to go with? Its not as easy as that. Remember the charter. We are not allowed to change things just because we would have done it differently. We have estblished (I claim) that the use of xml:lang in M&S is not broken (there are several implemenations). We have also established that it is useful (Jan's use case). That makes it a bit tricky to justify changing it. On what grounds are you proposing to justify a change. > > My vote (in order of preference): 2 (anonnode w/ xml:lang), 2b > (anonnode always), 5 (remove it and recommend something else). I'd rather see further analysis of pros and cons before we get to that. > > > ITS JUST HORRIBLE! > > I just liked this comment... it's definitely how I feel sometimes. :-) Hardly rational and scientific. My excuse is it was getting late after a long day. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 17 July 2001 05:41:35 UTC