- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: 02 May 2002 16:12:12 -0500
- To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Cc: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Wed, 2002-04-24 at 09:18, Pat Hayes wrote: > >Can't we split responsibility here. > > > >RDF Core provides: > >- rdf:parseType="collection" > >- rdf:List, rdf:first, rdf:rest, rdf:nil > > > >WOWG > >- provides functionality (i.e. uniqueness) [...] > >Jeremy > > > > Yes, this is what I thought (until yesterday) the proposal amounted > to. OK, I like this better. > I like this as it keeps RDF's hands clean but also lets WOWG do > what it wants to do. On the other hand, one could take the line that > if this is all that RDF is providing, why do *we* need to do it? I > mean, they could just use the daml:collection vocabulary, right? They can't make RDF parsers turn daml:collection into first/rest triples. -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 2 May 2002 17:11:50 UTC