W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > September 2001

RE: quick question/request about syntax wdraft

From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Sep 2001 12:12:18 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <JAEBJCLMIFLKLOJGMELDKEBOCCAA.jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
> RDF doesn't need a veto on all the values, just some of them: the M&S
> seems over constrained at this point. DAML and Tim Berners Lee have had
> the foresight to use a prefixed value that will play with namespaces;
> possibly we can't expect others to do likewise.
> What is _not_ perfectly clear is whether M&S users should crack ahead
> and extend parseType in the hope that if the M&S catches up, it won't
> run them over. Whatever about qualifying parseType attributes, the wg
> should export a clear stance on the matter of parseType extensibility.

We could reserve all unprefixed parseTypes for RDF use, and say that
extensions should use namespaced prefix attributes; thus blessing DAML and
TBL without a significant change to M&S.

Received on Friday, 7 September 2001 07:13:27 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:04 UTC