Re: datatypes and MT from Brian McBride on 2001-11-04 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from November 2001)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Sun, 04 Nov 2001 10:32:51 +0000
To: jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com
CC: sergey@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org, pfps@research.bell-labs.com
Message-ID: <3BE51953.9070906@hplb.hpl.hp.com>

jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com wrote:

> 
>>Are you suggesting that
>>
>>   <rdf:Description>
>>     <eg:prop>foo</eg:prop>
>>   </rdf:Description>
>>
>>is really shorthand for
>>
>>   <rdf:Description>
>>     <eg:prop rdfs:str="foo"/>
>>   </rdf:Description>
>>
> 
> yes

Now I understand, I think.  Of course this is not what M&S says, right?  So you 
are proposing that we redefine what triples are generated for:

    <rdf:Description>
      <eg:prop>foo</eg:prop>
    </rdf:Description>

i.e. they should be:

   _:anon <eg:prop>  _:lit .
   _:lit  <rdfs:str> "foo" .

I guess that's a test case.  Have I got that right?  If you are serious about 
this, can I suggest you post the suggestion, along with an explanation of the 
advantages and disadvantages to the WG.  But please note that its a change to 
M&S and will break every implementation out there, so it'll need a strong case.

Brian

Received on Sunday, 4 November 2001 05:37:48 UTC