- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 22 Oct 2002 12:36:37 +0300
- To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
[Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, patrick.stickler@nokia.com] > That seems to suggest that you will have to change this data anyway to be > conformant. Would it be feasible to change it use a b-node while you are > at it? > > some:Resource mars:shortLabel _:v . > _:v rdf:value mars:Token"Foo" . > _:v mars:lang "en" . > > or some such construct? The problem is that any solution *we* choose to use is not globally portable to any arbitrary RDF system as it is not specified by the standard. Heck, we can do whatever we want to do, but it's another thing entirely whether anyone else will support it. And if we have to roll our own for most of the key functionality of our models, then there remains little benefit being offered by RDF that XML won't provide. As I see it, the benefit-for-effort ratio just keeps getting worse... It remains to be seen whether OWL will balance out these omissions. Of course, that's just my own current feeling. Others in Nokia may feel different. Patrick
Received on Tuesday, 22 October 2002 05:36:42 UTC