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

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

From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:53:33 +0100
To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <69B15B675E99D411A4110008C786DA2301368F12@exwest_01.interx.com>


:pat hayes:
:
:But further to 2.; while we should not give literals URI's , they are
:nevertheless resources. Thats all we need to say.

Ok, so one hand I see the use of the term 'resource' in what I
affectionately call mumbo jumbo; that would include things we
call Literals in RDF. On the other hand I see the term used
as things to be described in RDF via the use of URIs; that does
not include Literals. Why don't we just have separate terms, say,
'entity' as you do and then 'Resource' for entities denoted
by a URI? That way Literals can be entities but not Resources.
The terms are arbitrary enough: though it seems less expensive
to change the mumbo usage of 'resource' to 'entity' in the M&S
document, than search and replace through the standing body of
RDF on the web.

Bill

----
Bill de hÓra  :  InterX  :  bdehora@interx.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 08:54:44 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:38:08 EDT