- From: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Date: Thu, 05 Jul 2001 14:27:30 +0100
- To: Ron Daniel <rdaniel@interwoven.com>
- CC: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>, rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
I will schedule time for discussion at this weeks telecon. I suggest that this weeks email discussion has been useful. I think we now have a clearer understanding of the issue - at least I feel I do. Let me try to do a little summing up. I think we have identified two questions. Is this a change to M&S? If it is, then are there compelling reasons why we should make a change? I have asked the question: o Does the formal model described in M&S have a distinguished representation for literals. I have seen that several people think that it does. When Aaron says: 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. I take it that he is undecided. It would be helpful Aaron if you could come to view on this before the telecon, as I would like the WG to decide this question. It may be helpful to consider the following quote from section 5 of M&S: and the corresponding triple (member of Statements) would be {creator, [http://www.w3.org/Home/Lassila], "Ora Lassila"} The notation [I] denotes the resource identified by the URI I and quotation marks denote a literal. If the WG decides YES on the first question, then to represent literals as resources in the abstract model would be a change. The second question then is: Is there a compelling reason why we should make this change? Compelling reasons might include - the current spec is unimplementable, is not being implemented, contradicts some other part of M&S or the change is needed to resolve some other issue. Aaron I believe is suggesting that since literals have identity, they satisfy the only requirement to be a resource. It would thus simplify both the abstract model and implementations to remove them as a distingished entity from the abstract model. Brian Ron Daniel wrote: > > 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 [...]
Received on Thursday, 5 July 2001 09:29:47 UTC