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

Re: draft partitioning of the issues

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2001 11:47:18 +0100
Message-ID: <3B39B9B6.E1E5CE5@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
To: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
CC: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>


Aaron Swartz wrote:

> No, I'm suggesting that we make Literals a subset of Resources.
> 
> >>> 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.
> > Could you give an example of using the current RDF/XML syntax to
> > represent a literal as a subject.
> 
> Well, it depends on how we define the abstract syntax. I'd
> suggest something like:
> 
> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
> xmlns="http://rdf.example.org/#">
> <rdf:Description rdf:about="data:text/plain;Chicago">
>    <startsWith>C</startsWith>
> </rdf:Description>
> </rdf:RDF>
> 
> become:
> 
> <data:text/plain;Chicago> <http://rdf.example.org/#startsWith>
> <data:text/plain;C> .
> 
> The XML syntax need not change for this.

Right.  Now I see what you are getting at.  This is:

  http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literals-as-resources

Creative interpretations aside, this is a change to the model
described in m&s, but it is a pure simplification in that it removes
something from the abstract syntax and changes nothing of the 
interpretation of what is left.  If it can be made to work, then
any model according to the more common interpretation of M&S would
be isomorphic with one using data uri's.

So on the procedural question, I'm persuaded - we should consider this
one.  Is anyone willing to write up a proposal?  It will need to cover
questions like, given a literal - what exactly is the uri a parser should
produce, questions of equality and equivalence (is <data:text/xml;A> the
same as <data:text/plain;A>, effects on implementations (do they have
to allow for larger URI's?) 

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2001 06:49:33 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:18 EDT