- From: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:28:57 -0500
- To: Bill de hÓra <dehora@eircom.net>
- CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Bill de hÓra wrote: >>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)? What's broken is what we're saying about what happens: we ought to be clear about what we mean is supposed to happen, and what information is supposed to be present for RDF processors to handle. > >>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. > I believe it! --Frank -- Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-875
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 09:20:30 UTC