- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 11:44:43 +0000
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>
- Cc: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Hi Patrick, At 12:00 12/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote: >On 2002-02-12 11:48, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote: > > > However, I do not consider, "because > > Patrick says so" to be a good reason. > >Tut, tut, Brian. Never expected you to. I note that you have not responded to the following: However, I would ask the WG, whether they feel that they would owe me, and other developers, an explanation for why, having gone to the trouble of implementing the spec correctly, we should be asked to change our code. and I have not seen anything in what you have written that comes close to an explanation of why this change would be a good thing. If there is something I have missed, then could I trouble you please to repeat it, or to provide a reference. Brian > >> Then we need to modify the representation of literal nodes > >> in the RDF graph to in fact be a pairing of string along > >> with (possibly unspecified) language. > > > > That would be an implication of not changing from m&s's current position. > >Clearly. > >But then, this would need to be reflected in the MT, and pretty >much everywhere that literals are mentioned, and we should adopt >some representation other than strings to denote literals in >various graph and triples notations. > >At present, language is invisible (and thus IMO nonexistent) in >the RDF graph. > >If literals are pairings of string and language, then let's >represent them that way everywhere. > >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, 12 February 2002 06:46:21 UTC