migrating from M&S

> 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