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

Re: A collection of issue resolutions

From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:05:21 -0500
Message-Id: <p05101418b8909158ac1d@[]>
To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>On 2002-02-12 21:05, "ext Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.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.
>>  Propose
>>   o the WG resolves that the current syntaxes (RDF/XML, n-triples, graph
>>  syntax) do not allow literals as subjects.
>>   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.
>Not fine. There are very real reasons (now) why they should not.
>If literals become tidy, then literals cannot be subjects.

Sure they can. Literals denote character strings. Why cannot a string 
be a subject? I might want to say something about it, eg that its 
written in German.  This has got nothing to do with tidiness.

>themselves do not denote resources. Literals, in conjunction with
>some context such as datatype or other qualification may participate
>in the denotation of a resource, but they themselves do not denote
>the resource (if they are tidy).
>If we want to allow the literal node to denote the
>resource, by hanging all those qualifications off the literal node
>so that the literal node becomes a literal-in-context, which denotes
>a resource, then the literal node also denotes the context/occurrence
>of that literal, and thus literals cannot be tidy.

You are objecting to a more advanced case which would require 
literals to be context-sensitive. Thats a different issue.

>This was one of the key hot-issues in the recent tidy/untidy debates
>and I tried to point out the ramification that adopting tidy literals
>precluded literals as subjects (the P++ idiom).

The point there was not allowing literals to be subjects, but the 
fact that it made literals context-sensitive in meaning. THAT was the 
killer problem that required untidy literals.  Allowing literal 
subjects is orthogonal.

In haste.


IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:05:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 14:53:55 UTC