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

Re: literals as resources / completion of ACTION 2001-07-06 (dependencies)

From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:26:31 -0700
Message-ID: <3B4B7307.5D2D6928@db.stanford.edu>
To: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
CC: RDFCore WG <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
pat hayes wrote:
> >I agree with Frank that "out of scope" is a weak argument. This is a
> >crack at clarifying the role of literals as a part of the formal
> >model. Below I tried to make the relationship with M&S explicit
> >whenever possible, and to identify the new issues arising from this
> >proposal. Notation A x B corresponds to the Cartesian product.
> >
> >In particular, I'd like to see whether the clarifications summarized
> >below break something in M&S that is not already broken, or have
> >subtle troubles that I failed to identify.
> >
> >Formal model:
> >------------
> >
> >1. There is a set of Unicode strings called Unicode*.
> >
> >2. There is a set called Entities = Unicode* x Unicode*, i.e. an
> >entity is a pair of Unicode strings. The first Unicode string of the
> >pair is called "namespace prefix".
> Pity to use the term 'Entity' for a syntactic category.

M&S spec to refers to resource constants (symbols, identifiers, etc.)
and literal constants simply as resources and literals. So I'm using
entities instead of entity constants.

> >3. There is a subset of Entities called Resources.
> That doesn't conform to usage of 'resource' in the larger W3C world.
> You have defined resources to be pairs of character strings. My
> understanding is that resources are actual entities (not Entities) ,
> ie things referred to by expressions, not a syntactic category.

But you definitely have a point in that a distinction should be made if
we choose to provide formal semantics.

Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 17:00:06 UTC

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