- From: Pierre G. Richard <prichard@brience.com>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2001 19:54:30 +0200
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
To clarify my position. - A RDF-literal is a resource, in the common sense of the term "resource". - It is not a RDF-resource as defined by the M&S, because a RDF-literal has no URI. Seen in other computing worlds: - A java String is an Object, a java char[] is a primitve data type. - An <!ENTITY> can be internal (a literal), external: SYSTEM, PUBLIC, or even NDATA with a Notation attached Java or XML could have get rid of (respectively) char[], internal entities. They didn't. And this brings me to ask the Question and my own answer: Q: does RDF need "literal" e.g. a primitive (non-RDF)resource type? (My) A: YES. Because prooved by Computer History (aka Axiom.) If one needs something more elaborate, one is able to use a data URI scheme, or some appropriate protocol. RDF does say: "The object of a statement can be another resource or a literal" I can do what I want. I'm happy. The term "resource" is just too imprecise. Should it be RDF-resource, U-Resource (Universal resource, accessible by the Universe) or resource in italics? In brief, I don't see anything wrong in the current M&S that precisely defines what a RDF-resource is. The term is just confusing. Or shall we say "a literal is a primitive resource, and, in this sense, doesn't belong to what RDF names "resource." Again, the real question is: do we have the need for "vanilia strings"? Pierre. > -----Original Message----- > From: w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org > [mailto:w3c-rdfcore-wg-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Frank Manola > Sent: Friday, July 06, 2001 5:09 PM > To: rdf core > Subject: literals as resources > > > Just to continue the thought I was expressing when the audio cut off: > > I think what a number of people are concerned about is the possibility > of spending a lot of discussion time trying to thrash out the > ramifications of deciding the question of literals as > resources one way > or the other. I'd like to suggest that anyone who wants to should > simply write up what they would like to see the M&S say about > this as a > proposed change to the spec (having, possibly with the help of other > interested members, worked the details out to some level of > completeness). I, for one, wouldn't rigidly rule a proposal > along these > lines that seemed to make sense out of order on some > artificial "out of > scope" grounds; but a lot of committee discussion time without this > sort of ground work having been done ahead of time does seem like a > waste of crucial bandwidth. > > --Frank > > > -- > Frank Manola The MITRE Corporation > 202 Burlington Road, MS A345 Bedford, MA 01730-1420 > mailto:fmanola@mitre.org voice: 781-271-8147 FAX: 781-271-8752 >
Received on Friday, 6 July 2001 13:56:06 UTC