- From: Ken Baclawski <kenb@ccs.neu.edu>
- Date: Sat, 4 Aug 2001 12:39:40 -0400 (EDT)
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: www-rdf-comments@w3.org
Here is the URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part#203 This paragraph contains these two sentences: "Other values of parseType are reserved for future specification by RDF. With RDF 1.0 other values must be treated as identical to 'Literal'." Ken Baclawski Ken@Baclawski.com On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, Brian McBride wrote: > Hi Ken, > > Ken Baclawski wrote: > > > I agree that it is useful to anticipate future extensions, but not at the > > cost of making the current specification inconsistent. > > This is an issue that has come up before, and the spec clearly needs > clarification. Can you point me to the text where M&S specifically says > that parseType values other than Resource and Literal are allowed. A > reference to the paragraph numbered version of the spec at: > > http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2001Jun/att-0021/00-part > > is helpful. A paragraph reference can be created by adding #para-num to > that URL. > > Brian > >
Received on Saturday, 4 August 2001 12:39:50 UTC