- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 23 Nov 2001 21:26:43 +0200
- To: jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
> Principally, I understand his message as a vote in the > "cannot live with" > category against S; Yes. Thank you, Jeremy. This is my position. I'm sorry that I missed the vote. I had misunderstood that it would be held by email rather than during the concall. My error. I believe (and hope) that my posting http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Nov/0579.html clearly explains my position on the various proposals, which in a nutshell is that all three of the following idioms (the first two being in common use): SUBJ PRED _:OBJ . (modified DC, DAML) _:OBJ rdf:value "LIT" . _:OBJ rdf:type TYPE . and SUBJ PRED "LIT" . (P) PRED rdfs:range TYPE . and SUBJ PRED TYPE:LIT . (U) all define the same pairing ("LIT",TYPE) and are all semantically equivalent and equally acceptable means of denoting the value in a given value space to which the lexical form maps to. Cheers, Patrick
Received on Friday, 23 November 2001 14:26:33 UTC