- From: Pat Hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:12:13 -0500
- To: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>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. We aren't thought police. Lets be quite clear that literals denote strings, unconditionally and unambiguously. Thats all we need to say. If people want to say that a string has a property, then let 'em. It might not seem very interesting, but that's not our business. 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 17:12:17 UTC