- From: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 19:38:26 -0000
- To: "Sergey Melnik" <melnik@db.stanford.edu>, "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: "RDF Core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Sergey: > As a developer, I don't have an option. With TDL-RDF, all of my own > applications in mediation, model management, backend storage etc. would > technically become non-RDF applications, or applications "formally known > as complying with the deprecated RDF 1.0" ;) I don't see any practical > benefit in migrating all existing code to TDL, and I might not be a > single implementor out there. I would like to better understand this. The intent in the TDL model theory was that an interpretation with no supported types was the same as the current model theory. I suspect this boils down to the tidy versus untidy literal nodes issue. Tidiness had already vanished from the latest editors draft of the model theory, which is the one I was working from. Is that right? Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 14:38:28 UTC