- From: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 13:31:48 -0000
- To: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> Frank Manola: > > a. dispense with most, if not all, of P221: not just the > part that says that the language is considered part of the > literal, but also the part that talks about RDF applications > possibly considering language tagging in string matching and > other processing. +1 for processing mandates. I can see objections to removing references to literals as pairs. I don't like it but as Brian sort of says, what's broken (other than our sensibilities)? > b. accept that the language information is *somehow* there > in the literal (although the M&S doesn't say how). > Effectively, that sounds like a pair. > > [actually, maybe there's a c.: change what we mean by "RDF > application") I've asked for a definition before because of this paragraph. It's a bit of a rathole. Bill de hÓra
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 08:36:28 UTC