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

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

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2001 17:50:25 -0500
Message-Id: <p0510103ab7daae8d1f5d@[]>
To: Aaron Swartz <aswartz@upclink.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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.

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.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Friday, 28 September 2001 18:50:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:51 UTC