- From: Bill de hOra <bdehora@interx.com>
- Date: Thu, 8 Nov 2001 13:15:03 -0000
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Pat Hayes > > I have serious problems with this. For a start, why on earth would > anyone say that latitude and longitude and elevation were *strings*? > They clearly aren't strings, so this is just plain wrong. Dan Connolly >> (a) I agree people write stuff this way, and (b) I agree it's just plain wrong, so (c) I think it's critical that this issue (things versus their names, numbers vs. numerals...) is treated by the primer. Case in point: folks write <dc:creator>Dan Connolly</dc:creator> as if a character sequence "D" "a" "n" ... wrote a book. It's critical that we teach folks to write <dc:creator> <Person> <fullName>Dan Connolly</fullName> </Person> </dc:creator> >> Why is it critical? Yes, it doesn't help that dc:creator doesn't have its meaning written down formally. But if we interpret: <dc:creator>Dan Connolly</dc:creator> as if a character sequence created a page, then we interpret: <dc:creator> <Person> <fullName>Dan Connolly</fullName> </Person> </dc:creator> as if well formed XML element content created a page; in fact in the RDF-XML context: Dan Connolly is XML also. If we're going to beg a nonsense interpretation of dc:creator's definition, let's at least do it consistently. Adding a few tags does nowt critical that I can see. regards, Bill
Received on Thursday, 8 November 2001 08:18:40 UTC