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

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:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jun/0549.html
)

Regards,
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