W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Outstanding Issues

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2002 17:49:13 +0200
To: ext Graham Klyne <Graham.Klyne@mimesweeper.com>, Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B88F0619.E139%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-12 13:36, "ext Graham Klyne" <Graham.Klyne@MIMEsweeper.com>
wrote:


>> rdfms-literalsubjects: Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to
>> be literals?
>> 
>> I suggest that changing the RDF/XML syntax to support this is out of
>> charter.  I propose that we resolve this by saying that the current
>> syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph syntax) does not allow literals as
>> subjects, but this restriction may be removed by a future WG.
> 
> Assuming it doesn't mess up the model theory, I'd be inclined to not
> prohibit literals-as-subjects in the graph syntax, but otherwise apply what
> you say to RDF/XML and N-triples (for now).  This would mean that if a
> future group does define syntax to allow this, there is a semantic
> foundation ready for it.

But how can that work if literals are tidy and it has been agreed
that the interpretation of those literals is untidy, requireing
additional context to determine what they actually denote in
that context?

If literals are subjects, they have to either be untidy or have
globally consistent meaning. Right?

 
Patrick

--
               
Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Tuesday, 12 February 2002 12:21:56 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:09 EDT