- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 16:46:16 +0200
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 1:32, "ext Pat Hayes" <phayes@ai.uwf.edu> wrote: > ... but the discussion is confused because the Ntriples > *syntax* is ambiguous when literal nodes are not tidy. Then, as a step towards resolution, let's agree that literals are tidy. It doesn't break S. It doesn't break the fundamental core of TDL (though the TDL MT would have to give up any notion of the literal denoting a mapping, and there anyway seem to be ways to address that in the TDL MT). Let's agree that a literal is a literal -- and for any given literal there is one and only one literal node -- and whether that literal contributes to some interpretation that provides a typed value, and how that happens, is the real issue at hand. Note! This still does not mean that "untidyness" does not have to be dealt with properly. It does. But we just agree that we won't deal with it via untidy literals, but by some other mechanism either in the graph or in the MT. Does this make things easier for everyone? Are you OK with such a convergence, Jeremy? Patrick -- Patrick Stickler Phone: +358 50 483 9453 Senior Research Scientist Fax: +358 7180 35409 Nokia Research Center Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 5 February 2002 09:45:52 UTC