- From: Bill de hÓra <bdehora@interx.com>
- Date: Wed, 11 Jul 2001 12:18:29 +0100
- To: "RDFCore WG" <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
:Brian McBride: : :On the question of literals as resources, I've looked through :the recent :email traffic and the logs and minutes of last Friday's :discussion. I'd :like to test support for this position: : : o the WG agrees that URI's can be assigned to denote literals. Is this to say: the wg indicates that people may assign URIs to Literals in their RDF data? I think I would be fine with this, but I still don't understand what is being described. Is a Literal simply a resource that can be present in the web (ie on a computer)? : o it is not a priority for the WG to define a URI scheme for literals : at this time. +1 : o those who are interested in designing such a scheme are encouraged : to do so in www-rdf-interest. Eventually advancing to a w3c note, or incorporation into the next RDF iteration? : o a specific representation for literals remains a part of n-triples : and the abstract syntax. What becomes of Literals with URIs? Given: object ::= uriref | anonNode | qLiteral I assume that a Literal with a URI follows the uriref production. If we allow Literals to have URIs do need to describe how to turn them back into Literals again, or is that application dependent? Bill ---- Bill de hÓra : InterX : bdehora@interx.com
Received on Wednesday, 11 July 2001 07:19:41 UTC