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

Graham Klyne wrote:
> 
> 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.

There is a possible definition in which resource constants and literal
constants overlap, e.g. when both are special cases of (unicode string,
unicode string) pairs. In this case, 2) is very much related to 1) and
the other items...

Sergey

> 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:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0270.html
> >
> >3. Are literals opaque or composed of unicode string + language ID/URI?
> >
> >   Tracked as: #rdfms-xmllang
> >   Related: #rdfms-literal-is-xml-structure
> >   Summary:
> >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0122.html
> >            (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>
> <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
> ------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Monday, 1 October 2001 18:08:34 UTC