- From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 13:53:33 +0100
- To: <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
:pat hayes: : :But further to 2.; while we should not give literals URI's , they are :nevertheless resources. Thats all we need to say. Ok, so one hand I see the use of the term 'resource' in what I affectionately call mumbo jumbo; that would include things we call Literals in RDF. On the other hand I see the term used as things to be described in RDF via the use of URIs; that does not include Literals. Why don't we just have separate terms, say, 'entity' as you do and then 'Resource' for entities denoted by a URI? That way Literals can be entities but not Resources. The terms are arbitrary enough: though it seems less expensive to change the mumbo usage of 'resource' to 'entity' in the M&S document, than search and replace through the standing body of RDF on the web. Bill ---- Bill de hÓra : InterX : bdehora@interx.com
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 08:54:44 UTC