Re: Any use cases for untidy literals except long range datatyping? from Brian McBride on 2002-08-22 (w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org from August 2002)

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Aug 2002 14:15:13 +0100
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020822141210.02b9dd30@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>

Hi Pat,

At 21:00 20/08/2002 -0700, pat hayes wrote:

[...]

>With regards to this last point, yes. DAML and OIL and probably OWL will 
>need the flexibility of allowing (semantically) untidy literals,

That is a pretty compelling reason.  Please could you elaborate a bit, e.g. 
an example of where DAML relies on untidiness and why OWL needs it.

Brian

Received on Thursday, 22 August 2002 09:16:48 UTC