- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 12:13:17 -0600
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Hi Jeremy, many thanks for all the explanations. I now see where y'all are coming from, as it were. You are right that the old P++ did not handle the overlapping-value-spaces issue properly. I am struggling with a way to do it that doesn't have Bob's age be a pair. I'll get back on this asap. Pat PS. I like string-type pairs a lot better than literal-value pairs. At any rate, sets of literal-value pairs ought to be property extensions. PPS. re. yr reply to Q6: yes I was responding while going through, Im in too much of hurry to read things twice right now :-) But seriously, my point was that a set of pairs *is* a property extension in the MT, so it seemed kind of odd to make it into a class. I see that this preserves some deployed idioms, but it seems like a lot to bite off in order to achieve that. -- --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 Thursday, 31 January 2002 13:12:52 UTC