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

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

From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:42:44 -0700
Message-Id: <v0421010cb773ac61543a@[130.107.66.237]>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote:
> >
> > >Pushing aside resource mumbo jumbo (red herrings).
> >
> > I disagree; the problem is to get this mumbo jumbo consistent, since
> > our remit is to make the M&S spec coherent.
> >
> > >To me, it
> > >comes down to these 3 questions:
> > >
> > >1: Feasibility: can we give RDF Literals URIs in the M&S and
> > >stay within the charter?
> >
> > Yes, but....
> >
> > >2: Validity: should we give RDF Literals URIs in the M&S?
> >
> > No, because....
> >
> > >3: Purpose: if we did give RDF Literals URIs, what are we
> > >using the RDF to describe? (it's not at all clear to me)
> >
> > If you use the literal, you are describing a value directly; if you
> > were to use the URI of the literal, you would be referring to a
> > representation of the value. And there really isn't much utility in
> > doing that, as far as I can see. Still, you *could* do it, and you
> > would be referring to the same thing if you did so.
>
>If a literal constant is just a value from {"urn:data:literal:",
>Unicode*} as suggested in
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0042.html, we
>should not need an additional identifier.

I agree it doesnt NEED it, but is it meaningful to give it one? I 
presume the answer is yes; and if so, then the language rules should 
account for this (possible even if deprecated) usage.

Pat Hayes

(rest of message in a new thread)

---------------------------------------------------------------------
(650)859 6569 w
(650)494 3973 h (until September)
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 15:42:54 EDT

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