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

Re: A collection of issue resolutions

From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:52:16 +0000
Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20020213184053.023e6bb8@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
At 20:21 13/02/2002 +0200, Patrick Stickler wrote:
>On 2002-02-13 17:38, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com> wrote:
>
>
> >  "Wuthering Heights" <rdf:type> <ex:book> .
> >
> > is a silly thing to say because "Wuthering Heights" is a 17 character
> > string which is a bit too short to qualify as a book.  Under our present
> > proposals, "Wuthering Heights" cannot denote the book Wuthering Heights.
> >
> > This is what I think you may have meant when you said that Literals cannot
> > denote 'interesting' resources.
>
>Exactly.


:)


>For literals as subjects to be 'interesting' they must be untidy,
>and my concern was that folks would interpret the "go ahead" to future WGs
>as meaning that folks later might get interesting literals as subjects,
>which of course they won't since we're about to make literals tidy.
>
>All of the discussions that have occurred in this list and elsewhere
>have been based on the presumption of untidy, interesting literals
>as subjects, so we need to be clear that we're not simply deferring
>untidy, interesting literals as subjects because of syntax issues, etc.
>but that we are eliminating such a possibility for the future, even if
>later folks can have tidy, uninteresting literals as subjects.

I think we are agreed then, that the WG is aware of no reason why the 
syntaxes could not be enhanced to support tidy literals as subjects.

The original resolution text was:

o the WG notes that it is aware of no reason why literals should not be 
resources and a future WG with a less restrictive charter may extend the 
syntaxes to allow literals as the subjects of statements.

Since literals are tidy, I think, strictly this covers it.  Are you happy 
with this text now, given that we are clear.  If not, then I think it might 
best just to delete it.

Brian
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 13:53:43 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Wednesday, 3 September 2003 09:45:10 EDT