- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2002 22:19:04 +0000
- To: Frank Manola <fmanola@mitre.org>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Frank, At 16:37 30/01/2002 -0500, Frank Manola wrote: >Sorry, what do you mean by "extended n-triples representation"? In TDL, a literal is a pair. I dreamt up a little notation on the fly to allow me to represent that directly in n-triples. It was meant to intuitive. I guess it wasn't. > Things are complicated enough Just so. > trying to follow the various proposals and idioms thereof with a *fixed* > definition of n-triples. If we're going to allow extensions to > n-triples, there are too many things allowed to vary, and too few things > fixed. Besides, if we weren't constrained by n-triples as they are now, > there are all kinds of neat things we could do... I want to see how > things are going to actually be written in the notation we actually have. My assumption is that if we adopt TDL, n-triples will change. Brian
Received on Thursday, 31 January 2002 05:49:17 UTC