- From: Dan Brickley <danbri@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 15:30:44 -0400
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- CC: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Brian McBride wrote: > > At 11:39 25/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: > > >> [Patrick Stickler, Nokia/Finland, (+358 40) 801 9690, >> patrick.stickler@nokia.com] >> >> >> > Some RDF assumes string based semantics for literals. [There ought >> to be a >> > reference here, perhaps something from RSS ... >> >> RSS presumes value-based semantics. >> >> C.f. http://web.resource.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/, e.g. > > > Interesting. Do you think RSS uses value based semantics throughout? > Hmm, what test do we apply to tell the difference? As a member of the RSS-DEV working group, and a co-author of the RSS 1.0 spec, I feel pretty confident in saying that the RSS spec doesn't have a well worked out position on way or the other. You can use RSS and extend it with other RDF namespaces in any way you like. The RSS 1.0 built-in properties are, in my experience, perfectly deployable from a tidy perspective. I don't think there's much mileage to be gotten from trying to co-opt RSS as strong evidence one way or another in this debate. But if you want an RSS perspective on our current troubles: the main thing that RSS needs from RDF Core is some cleaned up specs, as swiftly as possible, rather than spending a couple more months polishing our understanding of subtle and obscure issues to do with literals. RSS-DEV is a very practical-minded group and I fear would view our current debate as needles-on-pinheads... Dan
Received on Wednesday, 25 September 2002 15:26:07 UTC