- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2002 11:17:44 -0600
- To: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Dan, you had almost convinced that some version of the S proposal is the best way for RDF to go, but then you said this: >To me, it comes down to this: In the RDF community, do folks >expect that "abc" always denotes the same thing as "abc"? >I looked at the Jena source, and it seems to. >The squish, rql, rdfdb and other query languages seem to. > >That's why I objected to the DAML design; it undermines >a popular assumption in the RDF community. (not to >mention that I find it ugly that we can't use >strings and URIs as the basic building blocks >for knowledge exchange). Re first paragraph above; are they really expecting that "abc" always *denotes* the same thing as "abc", for literals? (Not just that "abc" is the same string as "abc" , i.e.) Because if they are, then they really seem to me to just not doing datayping at all. Which is fine, I guess; but then we are supposed to be doing datatyping, right? I mean, by mandate, in our charter. So even though existing code may decide to ignore it, surely we are obliged to take it more seriously. Re second paragraph. I have to say, if the RDF community is expecting that strings and URIs are a sufficient basis for knowledge exchange, then its time the RDF community stepped out into the real world for a while. Come on, you can't be serious, surely? For example, numbers are *really* handy, you know? Pat -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- IHMC (850)434 8903 home 40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Tuesday, 29 January 2002 12:17:25 UTC