- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Fri, 02 Nov 2001 11:00:36 +0000
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
At 09:31 AM 11/2/01 +0000, Brian McBride wrote: >>Well, not all RDF graphs can be represented in RDF/XML, so why is that a >>serious constraint? > > >Because we are chartered to explain to folks how to use XML datatypes with >RDF. I'd rather not say, do it this way, but wait till the next round of >specs before you do. I'll repeat however, we will not let the charter get >in the way of doing the "right thing" on this issue. I'm just exploring >whether there is a way we can tripping up over the charter. I really don't see an issue here. Allowing literals as subjects in the abstract graph, and in N-triples, doesn't change the RDF/XML syntax as defined. Furthermore, if we use Pat's MT work in conjunction with RDFS closures, we can explain how to apply XML data types with the existing RDF/XML syntax (even if we can't express the graphs that result from RDFS closure in the existing RDF/XML syntax). #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Friday, 2 November 2001 06:18:49 UTC