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

Re: RDFCore WG minutes for the Telecon 2002-02-15

From: Patrick Stickler <patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2002 20:54:21 +0200
To: ext Dave Beckett <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk>, RDF Core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <B894777D.EC0B%patrick.stickler@nokia.com>
On 2002-02-16 19:58, "ext Dave Beckett" <dave.beckett@bristol.ac.uk> wrote:

> 18: Issue rdfms-literalsubjects
> Should the subjects of RDF statements be allowed to
> be literals?
> 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 subjects and a future WG with a less
>   restrictive charter may extend the syntaxes to allow
>   literals as the subjects of statements.
> See:
> http://www.w3.org/2000/03/rdf-tracking/#rdfms-literalsubjects

Could my posting


please be added as a "Further Discussion" reference for this issue, if
that can be done even after it is agreed to be closed?

I did not bring this up during the telecon as I did not feel
it should delay approval of the action or that rewording of
the resolution was manditory. Nor did I wish to consume
further valuable time on it.

Still, I would like for there to be some kind of mention somewhere
about the tidy/untidy, meaningful/nonmeaningful subjects issue, and
I think my use case referenced above is a reasonably specific and
precise summary of the issue.



Patrick Stickler              Phone: +358 50 483 9453
Senior Research Scientist     Fax:   +358 7180 35409
Nokia Research Center         Email: patrick.stickler@nokia.com
Received on Saturday, 16 February 2002 13:52:53 UTC

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