- From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
- Date: Thu, 5 Jul 2001 14:04:43 +0100
- To: "rdf core" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
:> 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 :identity. 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. regards, Bill ---- Bill de hÓra : InterX : bdehora@interx.com
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:05:33 UTC