- From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 18 Sep 2003 09:06:10 -0500
- To: Jeremy Carroll <jjc@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: pat hayes <phayes@ihmc.us>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
On Thu, 2003-09-18 at 08:17, Jeremy Carroll wrote: [...] > The additional blank node was at the heart of the untidy proposals (either > explicitly or implicitly) and this proposal is essentially untidiness > revisited. Is it really? After a quick read, I also came to the conclusion that consideration of this proposal involves reopening the datatypes issue... http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes but just to confirm, Pat, in your proposal, does this entailment hold or not? <a> <b> "10" . <c> <d> "10" . entails <a> <b> _:l . <c> <d> _:l . -- draft question: option C 10 Oct 2002 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0098.html <- 11 Oct 2002 minutes http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2002Oct/0131.html <- http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes -- Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Thursday, 18 September 2003 10:06:51 UTC