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: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:22:34 -0700
To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <EMEKICCGFEKJFGKMFLEPOELOCPAA.rdaniel@interwoven.com>
A basic principle for working in groups is "the
right of the minority to be heard, and the right
of the majority to decide".

Can we have a straw poll on this issue Friday to
see where the majority lies?

Thanks,
Ron




> -----Original Message-----
> From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org
> [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Aaron Swartz
> Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:58 PM
> To: Brian McBride
> Cc: rdf core
> Subject: Re: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope?
> 
> 
> I am often wary of games in wording since they mostly seem aimed 
> at making people admit things that they don't believe. So I ask 
> you to kindly stop the wordplay and instead let's have a 
> discussion on what we really mean. Still, even as message stands 
> it does not make much sense:
> 
> On Tuesday, July 3, 2001, at 02:48  AM, Brian McBride wrote:
> 
> >   The role of the RDF Core WG is to prepare the way for such work by
> >   stabilizing the core RDF specifications. The RDF Core WG is neither
> >   chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the 
> > RDF model.
> >
> > I presume that we are all still comfortable to be bound by the charter.
> > Broadly, the charter says we are to fix, clarify and improve the
> > SPECIFICATION of RDF's abstract model and XML syntax.  We are
> > specifically forbidden from reformulating the RDF model.
> 
> I'm not sure how to interpret that, since my dictionary says:
> 
> @prefix ed: <http://www.w3.org/2000/08/eb58#>.
> @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>.
> """
> reformulate
>         v : formulate or develop again, of an improved theory or
>             hypothesis [syn: redevelop]
> """
> 
> is ed:excerpt of [
>    = 
> <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=reformulate>;
>    dc:title "The DICT Development Group: Online Dictionary Query- 
> reformulate" ]
> 
> How do we improve something without coming up with an improved 
> theory? Perhaps you can shed light on this definition of 
> "reformulate".
> 
> Furthermore, it is unclear to me that we are strictly forbidden 
> from doing so, it is simply not our charter (i.e. a specific 
> goal/requirement).
> 
> > I suggest that the issue in question here is whether the abstract model
> > described in m&s has a distinguished representation for Literals.
> 
> I'm not sure what that means. What is a "distinguished 
> representation"? I think the question here is just what it would 
> appear to be: Do literals (as defined by M&S) have URIs? Based 
> on what I know about URIs, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes.
> 
> Let me be rather clear about my position in general: I think 
> that an RDF statement is made up of three URIs.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. Yes, 
> there is a set of things in M&S called "Literals". Whether this 
> is a side-effect of the XML syntax, or of the abstract syntax is 
> not clear to me. Still, even if it was a special part of the 
> abstract syntax, that does not prevent the set of Literals from 
> having URIs. And if we do decide that they have URIs, that does 
> not prevent us from maintaining this distinction or "special 
> treatment".
> 
> --
> [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 03:24:16 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:06 EDT