- From: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 00:22:34 -0700
- To: "Aaron Swartz" <me@aaronsw.com>, "Brian McBride" <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
A basic principle for working in groups is "the right of the minority to be heard, and the right of the majority to decide". Can we have a straw poll on this issue Friday to see where the majority lies? Thanks, Ron > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Aaron Swartz > Sent: Wednesday, July 04, 2001 8:58 PM > To: Brian McBride > Cc: rdf core > Subject: Re: #rdfms-literals-as-resources in scope? > > > I am often wary of games in wording since they mostly seem aimed > at making people admit things that they don't believe. So I ask > you to kindly stop the wordplay and instead let's have a > discussion on what we really mean. Still, even as message stands > it does not make much sense: > > On Tuesday, July 3, 2001, at 02:48 AM, Brian McBride wrote: > > > The role of the RDF Core WG is to prepare the way for such work by > > stabilizing the core RDF specifications. The RDF Core WG is neither > > chartered to develop a new RDF syntax, nor to reformulate the > > RDF model. > > > > I presume that we are all still comfortable to be bound by the charter. > > Broadly, the charter says we are to fix, clarify and improve the > > SPECIFICATION of RDF's abstract model and XML syntax. We are > > specifically forbidden from reformulating the RDF model. > > I'm not sure how to interpret that, since my dictionary says: > > @prefix ed: <http://www.w3.org/2000/08/eb58#>. > @prefix dc: <http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/>. > """ > reformulate > v : formulate or develop again, of an improved theory or > hypothesis [syn: redevelop] > """ > > is ed:excerpt of [ > = > <http://www.dict.org/bin/Dict?Form=Dict2&Database=*&Query=reformulate>; > dc:title "The DICT Development Group: Online Dictionary Query- > reformulate" ] > > How do we improve something without coming up with an improved > theory? Perhaps you can shed light on this definition of > "reformulate". > > Furthermore, it is unclear to me that we are strictly forbidden > from doing so, it is simply not our charter (i.e. a specific > goal/requirement). > > > I suggest that the issue in question here is whether the abstract model > > described in m&s has a distinguished representation for Literals. > > I'm not sure what that means. What is a "distinguished > representation"? I think the question here is just what it would > appear to be: Do literals (as defined by M&S) have URIs? Based > on what I know about URIs, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes. > > Let me be rather clear about my position in general: I think > that an RDF statement is made up of three URIs. > > > I have phrased this question carefully. The question is not whether a > > literal is a resource, for to answer that we need to resolve a bunch > > of difficult issues around what resources are. The question is > > whether the abstract model described in m&s treats literals specially. > > I don't see how this is relevant to the issue at hand. Yes, > there is a set of things in M&S called "Literals". Whether this > is a side-effect of the XML syntax, or of the abstract syntax is > not clear to me. Still, even if it was a special part of the > abstract syntax, that does not prevent the set of Literals from > having URIs. And if we do decide that they have URIs, that does > not prevent us from maintaining this distinction or "special > treatment". > > -- > [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 03:24:16 UTC