- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2002 17:37:21 +0200
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-02-05 17:20, "ext Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com> wrote: > My comments below. > >> 5: Do we allow S-A idiom? > > No ;-) In all fairness, I think I should explain my 'no' vote. From the users perspective, both knowledge creators and implementors, the pair of symmetrical local/global idioms based on rdf:value and rdf:dtype are very manageable and intuitive, and adding yet another idiom that does the same thing as the local idiom (per se) would make the datatyping solution more difficult to apply. From the ontology maintenance perspective, I don't think that the problem of multiple vocabularies goes away with the combination of the proposed pair of bNode idioms and the S-A idiom, so all my earlier expressed concerns apply as well. Hopefully that is clearer than just 'no' ;-) Cheers, 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 10:36:27 UTC