- From: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2001 14:26:31 -0700
- 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. Sergey
Received on Tuesday, 10 July 2001 17:00:06 UTC