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

Re: draft partitioning of the issues

From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:57:36 -0500
Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Message-Id: <20010625005736.ZGDP29747.femail17.sdc1.sfba.home.com@localhost>
On Sunday, June 24, 2001, at 09:25  AM, Brian McBride wrote:

>> I also believe the following issues are in scope for the 
>> Working Group:
>>
>> rdfms-literals-as-resources and rdfms-literalsubjects:
>> A large body of implementation and user experience shows the 
>> need for these issues to be clarified. I think that there is 
>> certainly room for clarification of this within the charter of 
>> the Working Group.
>
> I'm a bit confused by this one Aaron.  Whilst I'm not arguing 
> (yet) whether
> these are in or out of scope, they don't seem to be about 
> clarification.
> Is there any doubt that as far as m&s is concerned:
>
>   o literals are not allowed as subjects
>   o literals are not resources

I do not see either of these stated in the spec. M&S says:

	 pred is a property (member of Properties), sub is a resource
	(member of Resources), and obj is either a resource or a
	literal (member of Literals).

but it never says that literals and resources are disjoint in 
any normative portion of the document (to my knowledge, after a 
quick search).

> Which is maybe not how some folks would like it to be.  If we 
> considered
> introducing this change, do you think we would need a syntax change to
> represent it?  Of course, anyone can now use data uri's now if 
> they want to.
> We don't have to do anything to support that.

No, I do not think a syntax change is necessary. This is simply 
a change to the abstract syntax.

>> rdf-equivalent-uri's:
>> Experience with the DAML specification has shown equivalence
>> to be a useful and perhaps even essential property. It's 
>> absence from the
>> schema spec is, in my opinion, an error.
>
> I try to avoid using words like 'error', but I have long felt that such
> a facility would be useful.  I remember Mike Dean commenting at the
> Boston f2f that equivalence was "something that should get implemented
> early".

Yes, apologies if I offended anyone with the term error. 
However, I feel strongly that this is a useful facility.

--
[ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 20:57:43 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:15 EDT