- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 15:02:25 +0000
- To: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 12:53 10/03/2002 +0000, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] >7: What's the other path? >========================= > >If the above proposal looks too heavy, I would suggest dropping qnames in >attribute values from the level of ambition, and merely trying to not >prevent implementations from treating unusual namespaces unusually. We would >then stick with "Literal" and "Resource" as the only two values of >parseType. Vagueness is possible about precisely what string is produced. A >more limited interoperablity could be achieved by concentrating the spec on >the equaity of literals. > >I am happy to produce a second proposal based around that path. One thing to bear in mind is DAML's requirements. Should we consider cases where a daml:unambiguousProperty and a daml property with cardinality constraints take parseType=Literal values. Brian
Received on Tuesday, 12 March 2002 10:03:54 UTC