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@[192.168.0.6]>
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.
>
>Fine.
>
>>   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.

>Literals
>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.

Pat

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC					(850)434 8903   home
40 South Alcaniz St.			(850)202 4416   office
Pensacola,  FL 32501			(850)202 4440   fax
phayes@ai.uwf.edu 
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Wednesday, 13 February 2002 17:05:32 EST

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