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

Re: Literals as Resources (was RE: draft partitioning of the issues)

From: Jan Grant <Jan.Grant@bristol.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2001 17:33:28 +0100 (BST)
To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
cc: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>, Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.GSO.4.31.0106281728470.19796-100000@mail.ilrt.bris.ac.uk>
On Thu, 28 Jun 2001, Ron Daniel wrote:

> I am, of course, willing to abide by the rule of the majority
> if the group decides such a change is in-scope. But before
> this group spends its resources on this issue, postponing
> other issues we must consider, may I request a straw poll
> on the level of support?

I'm with you here Ron. The literals as resources looks nice, but
probably needs postponing until RDF 2.0.

jan

PS. on a related note:

What's just as nice is an RDF database that can generate "shadowing"
resources for literals (potentially, on the fly) - Danbri and I've been
knocking this idea around the office for ages:

	<data:...> <literalhack:shadows> "foo" .

- the idea being that you can use relationships on the shadowing
resources (literalhack:hasSubstring) to express query constraints.
Initially I was using anonymous resources for this, but the data: uris
seem a more logical choice.

-- 
jan grant, ILRT, University of Bristol. http://www.ilrt.bris.ac.uk/
Tel +44(0)117 9287163 Fax +44 (0)117 9287112 RFC822 jan.grant@bris.ac.uk
Axioms speak louder than words.
Received on Thursday, 28 June 2001 12:34:40 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:37:19 EDT