- From: Jos De_Roo <jos.deroo.jd@belgium.agfa.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Sep 2002 00:04:50 +0200
- To: "Brian McBride <bwm" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "w3c-rdfcore-wg" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
>At 13:17 21/09/2002 +0200, Jos De_Roo wrote: > >>[regretting not to have been there, but was impossible] >> >>taking http://ilrt.org/discovery/chatlogs/rdfcore/2002-09-20.html >>for the moment for granted >> >>[[[ >>.... >>[14:48:03] jjcscribe Vote: untidy 7, tidy 5. >>[14:48:11] jjcscribe DECIDED: untidy semantics. >>[14:48:22] jjcscribe DanC has outstanding dissent. >>]]] >> >>I'm recording outstanding dissent too !!! > >Reading what you say below, perhaps you are not dissenting. The question >put was: > >[[ > where you have an rdf;descipriton element containing a property element >of <age>10</age> is that tidy or untidy. >]] > >You are objecting to > > <a> <b> "foo" . > >being untidy but that > > <a> <b> _:dt"foo" . > >is ok. right, the latter is untidy thanks for the clarification Brian >Then, the question as put, if it translated to: > > <something> <age> _:dt"10" . > >would you be ok with that? of course I would but then how would you write (in RDF/XML) <something> <someproperty> "somestring" . which I consider as a very meaningful statement one can have <something> <someproperty> _:somelabel"somestring" . when using an explicit rdf:nodeId attribute -- , Jos De Roo, AGFA http://www.agfa.com/w3c/jdroo/
Received on Monday, 23 September 2002 18:05:30 UTC