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

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

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Mon, 01 Oct 2001 15:31:05 -0700
Message-ID: <3BB8EEA9.FAC60BCF@db.stanford.edu>
To: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>, w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
Pat Hayes wrote:
> 
> >On Friday, September 28, 2001, at 12:31  PM, Sergey Melnik wrote:
> >
> >>   Tracked as: #rdfms-literals-as-resources
> >>   Dependent issue: #rdfms-literalsubjects, would be resolved immediately
> >>if literals are resources
> >
> >Oh? I don't agree with that. We can say that literals are resources
> >(indeed, I think it's pretty clear we have to) but we don't have to
> >give them URIs, or a place in the RDF abstract syntax.

Granted, but see below.

> I agree. In the same vein:
> 
> >
> >These are the (possible) consequences:
> >
> >c1) Resources and literals are disjoint
> 
> I don't think this is a consequence. Literals are not URIs, but they
> can be resources, and literal values can definitely be resources.

Speaking of resources and literals, I meant "resource constants" and
"literal constants" (still have to adapt to the new terminology...) It
seems that the term for resource constants that is consistent with the
MT draft is "URI" or "referring expression".

In MT, URIs denote resources, and (apparently) literals denote literal
values. Terminologically, this does not seem very elegant. Pat, is there
a way to name the things more uniformly, e.g. resource -> resource value
(after all, resource constants may end up having two parts, namespace +
local name), or string -> literal, etc.?

Sergey
Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 18:05:49 EDT

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