On 1 Feb 2009, at 07:43, Michael Hausenblas wrote:
You rightly conclude that we very likely need a new attribute but
then state
that 'this document does not define what that attribute is called'.
Hm. I
think this is too much relying on a convergent market. I can't see
how this
should scale.
Kjetil had a similar concern. He is on this mailing list now though,
so I won't attempt to speak for him.
It is not that I don't think a proper attribute should be defined and
standardised (see appendix C of the draft) - it is more that there
are still a lot of decisions to make about it - what namespace should
it be in? what should it be called? ("graph" like TriX/TriG/SPARQL?
"context" like N-Quads? "formula" like Notation 3?) what should its
lexical space be? In fact, even its value space is up for question -
it could be a list of URIs for example.
I thought that it was important to have general discussion on the
idea first before making the syntax completely concrete.
--
Toby A Inkster
<mailto:m...@tobyinkster.co.uk>
<http://tobyinkster.co.uk>
