- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 12:25:16 -0800
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Jeremy Carroll wrote: > > 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. Right, I tried to illustrate this point in http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Jan/0293.html > Tidiness had already vanished from the latest editors draft of the model > theory, which is the one I was working from. I'm assuming you are referring to http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2002Jan/att-0007/01-RDF_Model_Theory.htm ? There, in Appendix A, Subsec 1, tidyness is defined in condition 3 for both urirefs and literals. The comment "graph is tidy on uriref nodes" should in fact say "... tidy on uriref and literal nodes", since label() is used both for uri nodes and literal nodes - unless Pat had something else in mind? Pat, did you? Sergey > Is that right? > > Jeremy
Received on Friday, 25 January 2002 15:08:53 UTC