W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org > July 2001

RE: Literals as Resources (was RE: draft partitioning of the issues)

From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:04:43 +0100
To: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <69B15B675E99D411A4110008C786DA2301368EFF@exwest_01.interx.com>

:> Ron Daniel:
:> How about:
:> 1) A member of the original working groups (me) has stated
:>    that their recollection was that the two were considered
:>    distinct. (That is a pretty strong recollection BTW).
: Aaron Swartz
:The Working Group has made a number of mistakes. It was my
:understanding that we were here to fix them.

Whether RDF Literals should be kinds of RDF Resources; if that
is a mistake, it is a validation/requirements mistake; possibly
such mistakes are outside the scope of our charter. The chairs
can probably clarify this best.

:> So let's turn this around. What evidence can you provide
:> showing that the 1.0 M&S spec considers them to be the same?
:> Since you are the one requesting this, the onus is on you
:> to show that it is only a clarification, or if it is a change,
:> that there is enough implementation experience showing it is
:> a needed change.
:The evidence is clear in the definitions of Resources and
:Literals in the many Web architecture specs. I simply don't
:understand how a Literal is not a resource -- something with

Literals might be, and you might be correct in the large. But
in RDF, an RDF resource is just a thing denoted by a URI; the
fact that things have identity is orthogonal; what's important
in RDF is that things have URIs. That makes RDF Literals
distinct from RDF resources in the M&S.


Bill de hÓra  :  InterX  :  bdehora@interx.com
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:05:33 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:24:02 UTC