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

RE: Priorities for F2F (completion of ACTION: 2001-06-22#4)

From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:18:29 +0100
To: "RDFCore WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <69B15B675E99D411A4110008C786DA2301368F1A@exwest_01.interx.com>
:Brian McBride:
:On the question of literals as resources, I've looked through
:the recent
:email traffic and the logs and minutes of last Friday's
:discussion.  I'd
:like to test support for this position:
:  o the WG agrees that URI's can be assigned to denote literals.

Is this to say: the wg indicates that people may assign URIs
to Literals in their RDF data? I think I would be fine with
this, but I still don't understand what is being described.
Is a Literal simply a resource that can be present in the
web (ie on a computer)?

:  o it is not a priority for the WG to define a URI scheme for literals
:    at this time.


:  o those who are interested in designing such a scheme are encouraged
:    to do so in www-rdf-interest.

Eventually advancing to a w3c note, or incorporation into the next RDF

:  o a specific representation for literals remains a part of n-triples
:    and the abstract syntax.

What becomes of Literals with URIs? Given:

object ::= uriref | anonNode | qLiteral

I assume that a Literal with a URI follows the uriref production. If
we allow Literals to have URIs do need to describe how to turn them
back into Literals again, or is that application dependent?


Bill de hÓra  :  InterX  :  bdehora@interx.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 07:19:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:50 UTC