- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2002 12:05:47 +0100
- To: "Patrick Stickler" <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, "Jeremy Carroll" <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 13:04 25/10/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] >And as I pointed out, if we have to start using our own idioms that >are not supported elsewhere for something that has been a feature >of M&S then RDF loses a great deal of benefit with regards to >portability of our content between arbitrary systems and tools. Ah, its becoming clearer. Nodia is not dissenting on the ground their code/data would have to change. Nokia is dissenting if the WG fail to standardize a mechanism for expressing ... I'm struggling to find words to describe what you are trying to express. Maybe Nokia could submit a note on the b-node idiom for representing whatever this is. There is a good chance it would gain wide acceptance. There are many things we are not standardizing. I'm not sure what's special about this one. And as for it being in M&S, this seems to be bound up with datatypes. M&S didn't say anything about datatypes, and I don't see how we are taking anything away from M&S (noting that rdfs:range was in schema) that affects this issue. Brian
Received on Friday, 25 October 2002 07:03:20 UTC