- From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:45:59 +0300
- To: "RDF Core WG 7332#" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
_____________Original message ____________ Subject: Re: Intentions of XMP Sender: ext Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> Date: Fri, 27 Sep 2002 08:41:25 +0300 At 21:49 26/09/2002 +0300, Patrick Stickler wrote: [...] > > Perhaps a clearer, more mnemonic way to ask this question > > would be, do the literal values of the following two properties > > mean the same thing to XMP applications? Would they be > > considered to carry equivalent semantics in both cases? > > > > <xmp:CreateDate>2002-09-25T11:36:07Z</xmp:CreateDate> > > <dc:title>2002-09-25T11:36:07Z</dc:title> > >Oh dear, that's not the same question at all. If we were going to ask >Adobe, it would have been useful to agree the question first. > > Oh come, now Brian. It precisely matches the structure > and semantics of the generic entailment. I'd have preferred the question be asked in terms of neutral names as in the original: <a> <b> "foo" . <c> <d> "foo" . As expressed, knowledge about the properties you have picked, built into XMP may have influenced the answer. But Brian, it is *precisely* that built in knowledge we are testing! Does XMP interpret those literals as denoting stings or values. I'm also not at all happy with the accompanying words. I'm not so sure any words would have been acceptable if the end result was support for value bases semantics. Patrick
Received on Friday, 27 September 2002 01:50:02 UTC