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

Re: big issue (2001-09-28#13)

From: Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 09:28:48 +0100
Message-Id: <>
To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Cc: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Before I tackle the technical content, I'd like to raise a "point of order":

It is not clear to me that item 2 must or should be dealt with as part of 
the same "big issue" as the other points.  Indeed, I find the idea that the 
nature of literals and the nature of URIs somehow interdependent to be 
rather scary.


At 10:31 AM 9/28/01 -0700, Sergey Melnik wrote:
>It seems to be generally acknowledged that the following 4 issues are
>closely related and, thus, may need to be resolved simultaneously:
>1. Are literals resources?
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-literals-as-resources
>   Dependent issue: #rdfms-literalsubjects, would be resolved immediately
>if literals are resources
>2. Are resource URIs opaque or composed of namespace + local name?
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-uri-substructure
>   Intro:
>3. Are literals opaque or composed of unicode string + language ID/URI?
>   Tracked as: #rdfms-xmllang
>   Related: #rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
>   Summary:
>            (suggests literals are composite values)
>4. How to use datatypes in RDF?
>   Tracked as: #rdfs-xml-schema-datatypes
>   Possible foundation: http://www.w3.org/TR/xmlschema-2/

Graham Klyne                    MIMEsweeper Group
Strategic Research              <http://www.mimesweeper.com>
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 04:49:20 EDT

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:40:55 EDT