- From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 16:25:43 +0100
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 01:26 PM 10/1/01 +0100, Jeremy Carroll wrote: >I am less than comfortable with the direction of > >Graham's >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Oct/0002.html > >Jan's >http://ioctl.org/rdf/literals > >which both seem to make much more of a Literal than M&S. > >Our job is constrained by the charter. > >I see our job as making the best sense we can out of M&S and schema, and not >reinventing RDF from the ground up. I agree with the last, and don't believe either approach was "reinventing" RDF, just taking a different view on clarification of M&S. Specifically, the ideas I suggested do not in any way change the RDF/XML syntax, and I think they are consistent with the RDF M&S triple-based "model" (arguable, more so than M&S itself). I raised my points, in part, because M&S seems to be contradictory on what a literal is, so something has to give. I can see my proposal is probably inconsistent with existing code, so may not be a good direction. I don't think that's so true of Jan's approach. #g ------------------------------------------------------------ Graham Klyne MIMEsweeper Group Strategic Research <http://www.mimesweeper.com> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com> ------------------------------------------------------------
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 12:02:34 UTC