RE: referendum on httpRange-14 (was RE: "information resource")

> >I agree that the restriction on URIs in the subject in RDF is a
mistake.
> >I forgot what happened to that comment process wise.
> 
> It was a language extension that we did not feel was justified by the
> charter and/or specific difficulties with RDF as defined.  Generally,
it

This makes me nervous.  We are already finding it very difficult to
prevent people from using URIs in ambiguous ways; it seems we are
inviting people to get even more confused if we allow literals.

Can't people just mint a URI to stand in for a literal, if they want to
assert about that literal?