- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Wed, 09 Jan 2002 17:41:41 -0600
- To: Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On 2002-08-01 6:05 AM, "Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote: > I propose that we do not change the name rdf:value and close this issue. > > 1. Insufficient reasons to make this change > 2. Will causing an existing uses to be illegal - such as as > the examples in M&S. > > This proposal *does not* indicate how this name is *used*, merely > that the name in the RDF Namespace, will remain "value". I see this > as tangental to resolution of datatyping issues. Before we close this issue, I insist that we add a new issue to deal with the semantics of rdf:value, which many implementers and users and been confused about. I will not vote to close this issue until a new issue is added to the issues list. Here's a proposed piece of text for the issues list: Issue rdf-semantics-of-value: Clarify the semantics of the rdf:value property. raised Fri, 09 Jan 2002 by Aaron Swartz Summary: The property rdf:value is used confusingly and inconsistently throughout the M&S and is never defined. Some have suggested it is used for multi-valued properties (some suggest currying is a better way to do this) and others have claimed it is for defining the lexical representation of a resource. It is requested that the Working Group clarify its meaning and usage. Currently: for discussion -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Wednesday, 9 January 2002 18:41:52 UTC