- From: Dan Brickley <Daniel.Brickley@bristol.ac.uk>
- Date: Mon, 20 Nov 2000 17:21:00 +0000 (GMT)
- To: "McBride, Brian" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- cc: "'Dan Brickley'" <danbri@w3.org>, Jonas Liljegren <jonas@rit.se>, Seth Russell <seth@robustai.net>, RDF-IG <www-rdf-interest@w3.org>
On Mon, 20 Nov 2000, McBride, Brian wrote: > > I am however in the business of trying to make sure all that > > stuff (eg. > > possible rechartering of model/syntax work) reflects the concerns and > > experience of RDF implementors. Specifically, I'd like to better > > understand how the design issues here relate to existing RDF > > implementations and vocabularies. If/when we jump one way or > > the other on > > this issue, current code and systems may break if they've > > made a different > > interpretation of the spec. Right now I'm not sure if most > > implementors > > have for eg tried to remain neutral, with code that could operate in > > either style. I suspect most folk would value resolution of this issue > > pretty highly, and would live with the consequences. What I > > don't know yet > > is how big a disruption this issue's resolution might be. > > > I can see that the disruption caused to current implementations > would be a factor if m&s was ambiguous. But if the answer lies > in m&s, I humbly suggest the spec takes precedence. That's what > specs are for. Maybe I missed the appropriate post, but I'm unclear how we square the set-oriented definition of 'Statement' with the syntactic ability to assign various IDs (and hence URIs) to the XML occurances of RDF statements. Or rather, I suspect we could do this, by adopting a strong view on the "can a resource have multiple URIs" question that periodically bedevils discussion here and elsewhere. Dan
Received on Monday, 20 November 2000 12:23:28 UTC