- From: Aaron Swartz <me@aaronsw.com>
- Date: Sun, 24 Jun 2001 19:57:36 -0500
- To: Brian McBride <bwm@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
- Cc: rdf core <w3c-rdfcore-wg@w3.org>
On Sunday, June 24, 2001, at 09:25 AM, Brian McBride wrote: >> I also believe the following issues are in scope for the >> Working Group: >> >> rdfms-literals-as-resources and rdfms-literalsubjects: >> A large body of implementation and user experience shows the >> need for these issues to be clarified. I think that there is >> certainly room for clarification of this within the charter of >> the Working Group. > > I'm a bit confused by this one Aaron. Whilst I'm not arguing > (yet) whether > these are in or out of scope, they don't seem to be about > clarification. > Is there any doubt that as far as m&s is concerned: > > o literals are not allowed as subjects > o literals are not resources I do not see either of these stated in the spec. M&S says: pred is a property (member of Properties), sub is a resource (member of Resources), and obj is either a resource or a literal (member of Literals). but it never says that literals and resources are disjoint in any normative portion of the document (to my knowledge, after a quick search). > Which is maybe not how some folks would like it to be. If we > considered > introducing this change, do you think we would need a syntax change to > represent it? Of course, anyone can now use data uri's now if > they want to. > We don't have to do anything to support that. No, I do not think a syntax change is necessary. This is simply a change to the abstract syntax. >> rdf-equivalent-uri's: >> Experience with the DAML specification has shown equivalence >> to be a useful and perhaps even essential property. It's >> absence from the >> schema spec is, in my opinion, an error. > > I try to avoid using words like 'error', but I have long felt that such > a facility would be useful. I remember Mike Dean commenting at the > Boston f2f that equivalence was "something that should get implemented > early". Yes, apologies if I offended anyone with the term error. However, I feel strongly that this is a useful facility. -- [ "Aaron Swartz" ; <mailto:me@aaronsw.com> ; <http://www.aaronsw.com/> ]
Received on Sunday, 24 June 2001 20:57:43 UTC