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.

+1

:  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
iteration?


:  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

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

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