- From: <Patrick.Stickler@nokia.com>
- Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 15:27:11 +0300
- To: <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, <danbri@w3.org>, <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
> -----Original Message----- > From: ext Jeremy Carroll [mailto:jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com] > Sent: 09 May, 2003 15:19 > To: Dan Brickley; Brian McBride > Cc: Jeremy Carroll; w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > Subject: RE: Agenda for RDFCore WG Telecon 2003-05-11 > > > > > > > > If they were just constraining the current RDF/XML syntax, it'd > > be bearable. But > > for this to be their legacy for all future syntaxes seems pretty > > heavy, given > > that the triples are implied. > > > > No - strong disagreement. > > In OWL there are many triples which are redundant because > they are implied. > However, it is hard to tell which triples are redundant and > which are not. > End users need clear and simply guide lines. One such guideline is > "everything must have a type". Do you mean by that that "everything must have at least one explicitly asserted type"? If everything has at least one inferrable type, is that not enough? Patrick
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 08:40:59 UTC