- From: pat hayes <phayes@ai.uwf.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2001 12:42:44 -0700
- To: Sergey Melnik <melnik@db.stanford.edu>
- Cc: w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org
>pat hayes wrote: > > > > >Pushing aside resource mumbo jumbo (red herrings). > > > > I disagree; the problem is to get this mumbo jumbo consistent, since > > our remit is to make the M&S spec coherent. > > > > >To me, it > > >comes down to these 3 questions: > > > > > >1: Feasibility: can we give RDF Literals URIs in the M&S and > > >stay within the charter? > > > > Yes, but.... > > > > >2: Validity: should we give RDF Literals URIs in the M&S? > > > > No, because.... > > > > >3: Purpose: if we did give RDF Literals URIs, what are we > > >using the RDF to describe? (it's not at all clear to me) > > > > If you use the literal, you are describing a value directly; if you > > were to use the URI of the literal, you would be referring to a > > representation of the value. And there really isn't much utility in > > doing that, as far as I can see. Still, you *could* do it, and you > > would be referring to the same thing if you did so. > >If a literal constant is just a value from {"urn:data:literal:", >Unicode*} as suggested in >http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/w3c-rdfcore-wg/2001Jul/0042.html, we >should not need an additional identifier. I agree it doesnt NEED it, but is it meaningful to give it one? I presume the answer is yes; and if so, then the language rules should account for this (possible even if deprecated) usage. Pat Hayes (rest of message in a new thread) --------------------------------------------------------------------- (650)859 6569 w (650)494 3973 h (until September) phayes@ai.uwf.edu http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
Received on Thursday, 12 July 2001 15:42:54 UTC