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

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> At 02:52 PM 7/10/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> >resource (constant) = URI, name, referring expression
> 
> I think that's clearly at odds with RFC2396 (which seems the nearest thing
> we have to a universally accepted starting point for defining these things):
> 
> [RFC 2396, section 1.1]:
> 
>        Resource
>           A resource can be anything that has identity.  Familiar
>           examples include an electronic document, an image, a service
>           (e.g., "today's weather report for Los Angeles"), and a
>           collection of other resources.  Not all resources are network
>           "retrievable"; e.g., human beings, corporations, and bound
>           books in a library can also be considered resources.

Hm. From reading M&S it feels though that Resources are
URI-identifiable/-ied things. I think this is *the* top-priority issue
that we have to clarify and hold on (e-)paper.

Sergey