W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

RE: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?

From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jul 2001 08:21:11 -0700
To: "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPKEJECPAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com>
Brian said:

> Subject: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?
> We need to resolve the question of whether this issue is in scope or not.
> I suggest that the issue in question here is whether the abstract model
> described in m&s has a distinguished representation for Literals.
> I have phrased this question carefully.  The question is not whether a 
> literal is a resource, for to answer that we need to resolve a bunch
> of difficult issues around what resources are.  The question is
> whether the abstract model described in m&s treats literals specially.
> If it does, then so must we if we are to avoid 'reformulating' the model.

I am OK with this phrasing of the issue.

I think the evidence clearly shows that the M&S 1.0 spec DOES treat
literals in a special way.
(for the evidence I see for that position, see my earlier posting:

Ron Daniel Jr.
Standards Architect
Tel: +1 415 778 3113
Fax: +1 415 778 3131
Email: rdaniel@interwoven.com 

Visit www.interwoven.com
Moving Business to the Web 
Received on Tuesday, 3 July 2001 11:22:52 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:49 UTC