Alan, Always a pleasure to hear from you.
On 11 Jun 2011, at 18:55, Alan Ruttenberg wrote: > There already exists such a type that is a W3C recommendation. It is > called rdf:PlainLiteral - see http://www.w3.org/TR/rdf-plain-literal/ > > I'm not sure why RDF 1.1 working group is not aware of that. Thank you for your contribution. The RDF WG is well aware of that. >> It's just that the schema.org designers don't seem to care much about the >> distinction between information resources and angels and pinheads. This is >> the prevalent attitude outside of this mailing list and we should come to >> terms with this. > > I think we should foster a greater level of respect for representation > choices here. Your dismissal of the distinction between information > resources and what they are about insults the efforts of many > researchers and practitioners and their efforts in domains where such > a distinction in quite important. Let's try not to alienate part of > this community in order to interoperate with another. Look, Alan. I've wasted eight years arguing about that shit and defending httpRange-14, and I'm sick and tired of it. Google, Yahoo, Bing, Facebook, Freebase and the New York Times are violating httpRange-14. I consider that battle lost. I recanted. I've come to embrace agnosticism and I am not planning to waste any more time discussing these issues. Best, Richard
